$0m 



; m 













LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



dljap §W'# fa, 

Shelf...? 










PRONAOS TO HOLY WRIT 

ESTABLISHING, ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE 

AUTHORSHIP, DATE, FORM, AND CONTENTS 

OF EACH OF ITS BOOKS 

AND THE 

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 



BY y/ 

ISAAC M. WISE 

President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati 



W 



CINCINNATI 

ROBERT CLARKE & CO 

1891 









Copyright, 1891, 
By ISAAC M WISE. 



PREFACE. 

MOST critics read little more than the index or table of 
contents of the books which they criticise; few of 
them study an author before they attempt to laud or blame 
him. The author of this Pronaos to Holy Writ criticises 
the literature of the ancient Hebrews, and has read all those 
books and every word thereof in the original for a term of 
sixty-six years, i. e., from boyhood up to his seventy-second 
birthday, and has attempted to acquaint himself with all 
ancient versions and commentaries, and a large portion of 
the modern translations and commentaries of the Bible. 
Besides, he expounded Holy "Writ these forty-eight years in 
the synagogues and school-rooms, and before academical 
classes in the college these sixteen years. 

Therefore he ought to have written a much better book 
than this Pronaos to Holy Writ. He should have dived 
into the depth of this spiritual ocean, and brought up for 
the reader the priceless pearls of divine wisdom and salva- 
tion, the gems and beauties of inspired eloquence, the grand- 
eur and sublimity of divine truth. Domineering realism, 
however, in Biblical criticism as in all other realms of 
science, forbade him to make such an attempt before the 
authority and authenticity of the holy writings are estab- 
lished. God only did create light out of darkness ; man 
can not produce truth out of fiction, unless in his self-delu- 
sion problematic truth satisfies him. All so-called gems of 
truth buried under the quicksand of fiction and deception 
are problematic at best, if not supported by authoritative 



4 Preface. 

corroborants. None can speak conscientiously of Bible 
truth before he knows that the Bible is true, and especially 
in its historical data. The science commonly called Mod- 
ern Biblical Criticism, actually Negative Criticism, which 
maintains, on the strength of unscientific methods, that the 
Pentateuch is not composed of original Mosaic material, no 
Psalms are Davidian, no Proverbs Solomonic, the historical 
books are unhistorical, the prophecies were written post fes- 
tum, there was no revelation, inspiration or prophecy, must 
also maintain that the Bible is a compendium of pious or 
even impious frauds, willful deceptions, unscrupulous mis- 
representations ; whence comes the Bible truth of which 
they speak? It was necessary, therefore, the author thinks, 
first of all things, to meet Negative Criticism with the docu- 
mentary evidence — and this is undoubtedly the legitimate 
method of criticism — which establishes the truth of the 
Bible, before he could speak intelligently of Bible truth. So 
he could offer to the reader a mere Pronaos to Holy Writ, 
which will assist him in convincing himself of the truth of 
the Bible, and point him to the door leading into the 
interior of the sanctuary, which is the system of Bible 
truth. To this end we must know first and foremost when, 
where, by whom and to what end these various books were 
written, in order to judge correctly the quantity and quality 
of truth contained in them. It is this which this Pronaos 
chiefly offers. 

The author has paid particular attention to the most 
ancient records of Israel's history, contained in Pentateuch, 
Joshua, Judges, Kings and Ruth, and to the semi-propheti- 
cal books, called Hagiography, for the following reasons : 

1. If the historical veracity of the post-Pentateuchal 
records is established, as he verily believes he has done, all 



Preface. 5 

arguments against the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch are 
untenable, inasmuch as in all matters of fact the direct testi- 
mony of veracious witnesses or the documentary testimony 
of authentic records, are conclusively demonstrative oppo- 
site all circumstantial evidence of the a priori or a posterori 
category, which after all can prove probability or possibility 
only, and not certitude, which the direct or documentary 
testimony establishes. If the advocates of Negative Criticism 
urge that the author's arguments are insufficient to estab- 
lish certitude, they must admit their sufficiency to contro- 
vert their own. This places the problem upon the statu 
quo of the uninterrupted tradition, and this testifies to the 
Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. 

2. The same argument holds good with the Davidian 
Psalms and the Solomonic Proverbs. They not only testify 
directly to the existence and acknowledged authority of the 
Mosaic documents in the time of those kings as a heritage 
then of the congregation of Israel, but also to the veritable 
contents of those ancient documents being identical with 
the Pentateuch now before us. We find then in Psalms the 
Theology of Moses, in Proverbs the Ethics of Moses, in 
Job and Ecclesiastes the Apologetics of both, in Chronicles, 
Ezra and Nehemiah the necessary addenda to the ancient 
canons ; so that the entire Book is a logical organism, with 
every part in its right place. 

3. The authenticity of the Mosaic records is the founda- 
tion of all Bible truth. The whole system of righteousness, 
justice and equity for public government and the conduct 
of the individual, virtue and holiness as a form of divine 
worship, monotheism itself with all the doctrine derived 
from this principle, the entire canon of divinity and 
humanity depends for evidence on the authenticity and 



6 Preface. 

veracity of the Pentateuchal records ; every other evidence 
has been at different times refuted and is subject to skepti- 
cism now, perhaps, more than ever. If these records are 
fraudulent, there exists no proof that whatever the chroni- 
clers, prophets and psalmists said or sang is not of the 
same kind of fraud and imposition, and there is no Bible 
truth. This explains the author's attempt to save the 
records which establish Bible truth. The kind reader will 
decide how successful or unsuccessful this attempt was, and 
at least give credit to the author for honest}^ of purpose. 

* 

The Author. 

Cincinnati, the 3d day of the month of Nissan, 1891. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I.— MAIN DIVISIONS AND CLAIMS OF SACRED 
SCRIPTURES. 

PABAGBAPH. PAGE. 

i. The Religion of the Hebrews — Name, 12 

ii. The Substance of the Theology contained, 12 

in. The Collection of Books called Bible, 13 

iv. No book added, none changed its name, 13 

v. The forty-three books connected in twenty-four 

volumes, --------14 

vi. The twenty-four books in the three divisions of 

Thorah, Prophets and Hagiography, 15 

vn. The Doctrine involved in this division, 17 

vin. Maimonides expounds this doctrine, - 18 
ix. The division of Thorah in five books, Divisions and 

Contents of each, 19 

x. Antiquity of these divisions, - 23 

CHAPTER II.— THE FIRST CANON. 

i. Canon, a Greek translation of Thorah, 25 

ii. Cause of superiority and inferiority of the different 

Canons, -------- 25 

in. The very first Canon. (Note on the Book of the 

Covenant.) 26 

iv. The Mosaic Scrolls noticed in the Pentateuch and 

the matter added, ------ 27 

v. Deuteronomy originally written by Moses, - - 30 
vi. Moses the author of Genesis, - 41 

vn. The Thorah delivered to the priests and the Thorah 
delivered to the Levites and Elders. (Note on 

Isaiah i, 13.) 33 

vin. What Documentary Evidence establishes, - 34 

CHAPTER III.-THE FORMER PROPHETS. 

i. Position of Prophets in the Synagogue, - - - 36 
ii. The Authors and Editors of the Biblical books accord- 
ing to ancient tradition recorded in the Talmud, 36 
hi. Official and cotemporary Chronography, - - 37 

iv. The Historical Books are synopses or combinations 

from official and cotemporary records, - 39 

v. Joshua. 

Its orginal material, ------ 40 

vi. Divisions and Contents of the Book, - - 41 

vii. Judges. 

Divisions and Contents of the Book and its 
appendices, - T ----- 42 



8 Table of Contents. 

PABAGBAPH. PAGE. 

vni. Characteristics of the Book', - 43 
ix. Characteristics of the Appendices, being of later 

origin, -------- 44 

x. Samuel the author of Judges (note on " Dan "), - 46 
, xi. Joshua, being older than Judges, was written in the 

Phineas age dates for both books, 47 
xii. Samuel. 

Characteristics, - 48 

xiii. Divisions and Contents, ----- 49 

xiv. Authors, Samuel, Gad and Nathan and date fixed, 51 

xv. Proofs for the Samuel portion, - 52 

xvi. The objections reviewed, - 53 

xvii. Kings. 

Divisions and Contents, ----- 55 

xviii. Four Authors in Kings, 55 

xix. The last synoptic could not have written the 
former portions, nor could the first have writ- 
ten the last portions ; dates fixed, - - 56 
xx. Historical value and authenticity of the four books, 57 

CHAPTER IV.— THE LATER PROPHETS. 

1. The second part of the Second Canon, the names of 

the authors, 59 

11. Uninterrupted succession of Prophets to Malachi, 

425 B. C., - - - 59 

in. Joel. 

Divisions, Contents, Time and Characteristics of 
the book, ------- 65 

iv. Objections considered, ----- 66 

v. The four cotemporary prophets, dates of their 

prophecies, _■-.--- 67 

v. Amos. 

Divisions, Contents and Characteristics, 69 

vi. Hosea. 

Divisions, Contents and Characteristics, - 69 

vii. Isaiah. 

Divisions, Contents Characteristics and Unity, - 70 
vni. Isaiah xl. to lxvi. Contents, Date and Character- 
istics, - ------- 72 

Micah in paragraphs v. and vi. 
ix. Nahum. 

Divisions, Name and Place, Date and Contents, 74 
x. Habakkuk. 

Divisions, Contents and Date, 75 

xi. Zephaniah. 

Divisions, Contents and Date, - 76 

xii. Obadiah. 

Divisions, Contents and Date, 77 

xiii. Jeremiah. 

Name, Place, Date, Political Status, his relation 
to the Reforms of King Joshiah, - 78 

xiv. The Book of Jeremiah, Divisions, Contents and 

Characteristics, ------ 80 

xv. Imitation in Jeremiah xlix., -, - - - 82 



Table of Contents. 9 

PARAGRAPH. PAGE. 

xvi. Jonah. 

Divisions, Contents, Characteristics and Date, 83 

xxn. Ezekiel. 

Characteristics and Dates, - 84 
xviii. Divisions of the book, Literature and Peculiari- 
ties of the author, 86 

xix. Three distinct parts of the book, their character- 
istics, the prophet's place in history, 87 
xx. The Three Post-Exilic Prophets, Division of the 

Twelve Minor Prophets as one book, - - 89 
xxi. Haggi. 

Divisions, Contents, Characteristics and Date, 90 

xxn. Zechariah. 

Divisions, Genealogy, Contents, Characteristics 
and Date, -------- 91 

xxiii. The Five Chapters of Zechariah ix. to xiii., - 92 

xxiv. Malachi. 

Divisions, Contents, Characteristics and Date, - 93 

CHAPTER V.— HAGIOGRAPHY. 

I. Characteristics of Hagiography, and especially of 

Psalms, Proverbs and Job, - 95 

II. Psalms. 

The Five Books of Psalms and their contents, - 95 

in. The Headings in Psalms, ----- 96 

iv. The "Menazeach," or Chief Musician, - - 99 

v. The various Compilers and the dates of each, 99 

vi. The Book of Psalms, Divisions, Characteristics, 102 

vii. The Theological Doctrine of Psalms, - - 103 

viii. Proverbs. 

Divisions, Characteristics and Form, - 104 
ix. The Three Headings of Proverbs, Author, Com- 
pilers, -------- 104 

x. The Solomonic Ethics, Opinions of the Rabbis, 108 
xi. The Solomonic Ethics as Commentary of the 

Mosaic Ethics, - 109 

xii Object of Part III of the book, 111 

xiii Objections considered ; Date fixed, - 112 
xiv. Job. 

The Book of Job an Epos, Form and Contents, 113 

xv. The Position of the Book in the Canon, - - 115 

xvi. Time of its composition, - 118 

xvii. The Fourth Book of Hagiography, - - - 119 

xviii. Ruth, 

Divisions, Contents, Form, Author and Time, 120 
xix. Song op Songs. 

Divisions, Form and Characteristics, - - - 121 

xx Contents, -------- 122 

xxi As a Profane Poem, 123 

xxn. An Anagoge, Author, Compiler and Time, - 125 

XXIII ECCLESIASTES 

Divisions and Characteristics, - . . 127 

xxiv Cause of the Apparent Contradictions in the Book, 129 

xxv. Author, Compiler and Date, - 130 



10 Table of Contents. 

PARAGRAPH. PAGK 

xxvi. Lamentations. 

Divisions, Contents and Form, - 132 

xxvii. Historical Foundation, Author and Date, - - 133 
xxviii. Esther. 

Divisions, Contents, Purim, Historical Data, 

Author and Date, 135 

xxix. Daniel. 

Divisions and Characteristics, - 138 

xxx. Daniel vii , Author and Date, - 140 

xxxi. Ezra and Nehemiah 

Divisions, 141 

xxxii. Contents, -- 142 

xxxiii. Language, Arguments on the Author, - - 144 

xxxiv. Author, Compiler and Date, ... - 145 
xxxv. Chronicles 

Divisions, Contents and Object, - ' - - 147 
xxxvi. Characteristics of Chronicles, Additions to Samuel 

and Kings, -------- 148 

xxxvii. The Diction of the Chronist, Author and Date, 150 
xxxviii. The Nine Chapters at the head of Chronicles, 

Author and Time, ------ 151 

xxxix. Four Books connected in two, now again four, - 153 

CHAPTER VI. — THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PENTA- 
TEUCH. 

1. The Traditions of Israel, 157 

11. The Documentary Evidence direct. (Notes on 

Bamoth and Shiloh and Deification of the Ark), 157 
in. The Indirect Evidence. (Note on Jeremiah xxxiv.), 162 
iv. Argument e silentio, ------ 1^9 

v. Argument from the Last Books of the Canon, - 171 

vi. The Three Middle Books of the Pentateuch not 
edited in the time of Kings The Book of the 
Law found in the Temple in the time of King 
Joshiah, - ------- 173 

vii. The existence and authority of the Thorah traced 

up to Samuel, ------- 176 

viii. The three Middle Books must have been edited by 

Samuel, or before his time, - 177 

ix. Documentary Evidence compels us to admit that 
Mosaic records were edited after the death of 
Moses (although none in Genesis or Deuter- 
onomy). Causes to reject the hypothesis of 

Fragments, - 179 

x. The Jahvistic and Elohistic hypotheses of different 

authors refuted, 184 

xi. Ezra the Scribe — what is known about him, - - 187 
xii. What Ezra actually did, ------ 187 

xiii. The Invention of the Square-Letter Alphabet, - - 190 
xiv. The Massoretic Divisions, ----- 191 

xv. The Men of the Great Synod and the Correctors in the 

Temple, - 192 



CHAPTER I. 

MAIN DIVISIONS AND CLAIMS OF SACRED SCRIPTURES. 

THE religion of the Hebrews is commonly called Judaism, 
instead of Abrahamism or Mosaism according to its 
founders, Israelism or Hebrewism, according to its original 
votaries, or HliT HN^ Yirath Jehovah, "the Worship of 
Jehovah," as it is called in its own sources,* and Avhich is 
its main characteristic ; because the Grseco-Roman writers 
had no knowledge of this system of religion prior to the 
time of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, and then the 
land was called Judea and its people Judei, and consequently 
its teachings were called Judaism. The word Judaism, how- 
ever, being popularly understood to designate the religion of 
Israel, it was deemed advisable to use it also in this treatise. 
2. The substance of the theology of Judaism is contained 
in the Thorah, called in the Bible, rn»T fHVl "the Thorah 
of Jehovah," and in the Talmud, DDD^t^ iTTin "the writ- 
ten Thorah," or also fTTIfi >B>OPT ilfc'En " Pentateuch," in 
Aramaic, NJVfiN "the divine Canon." It contains not 
only the revelations of God's nature and will, his essential- 
ity, and attributes conceivable to man, but also the body of 
ethical doctrine, following with logical necessity from the 
cognition of the one, only and true God, to guide man and 
mankind to happiness. In this second sense of " the Tho- 
rah of Jehovah," the Greeks called it Nomos, " the Law ; " 
for whatever follows with logical necessity from the cogni- 
tion of God is canon and law to man. The Thorah is 
expounded, expanded, amended, and the history of its 
development and progress recorded in the other books of 

* Isaiah xxxiii. 6 ; Proverbs i. 7, and many other places, especially 
in Psalms and Proverbs, always improperly rendered " Fear of the 
Lord.'" 



12 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

the collection called the Bible, by inspired teachers, and by- 
uninspired savants, or sages in the post-biblical literature of 
Israel ; for all of whom, however, the Thorah was and must 
unexceptionally be taken as source and standard. It is 
presumed that the revelations of God's nature and will in 
the Thorah are the ultimate for man's comprehensibility 
and his attainment of happiness in time and eternity. 
Therefore, the Thorah is eternal. This always was universal 
doctrine among orthodox Israelites. 

3. The collection of sacred books called by G-rseco-Latin 
writers Biblia* " the Book" " the Bible," as it is now before 
us, consists of the following forty-three books : 

Five books of Moses, one of Joshua, one of Judges, two 
of Samuel, two of Kings, one each of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, and twelve of the Minor Prophets, connected under 
the Aramaic name of IDpHD ; five of Psalms, one each of 
Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, 
Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and two Books 
of Chronicles. Each of these books is mentioned in a 
source of the Talmud called Beritha. (Baba Bathra, 146.) 
Quotations from each of these books occur in the Talmud 
and its sources, f The main commentaries accepted by the 
Israelites are contained in the Talmud, of which there exist 
two collections ; one compiled in Palestine at the end of the 
fourth Christian century, is called the Talmud of Jerusalem 
(Talmud Yerushalmi), and the other, compiled in Persia 
at the end of the fifth Christian century, is called the Tal- 
mud of Babylon ( Talmud Babli). The extant written 
sources of both collections, besides the Bible, are the six 



* Originally the plural " books," used as a singular in Latin to 
denote the Book emphatically. 

t See " Toldoth Aaron," by Aaron ben Moses, of Pisaro, and 
"Toldoth Jacob," by Jacob Sasportes, Amsterdam, 1652, added 
also to some editions of the Rabbinical Bible. These books fur- 
nish a complete index of Bible passages quoted in the Talmud, also 
in Zohir, Akedah and Ikkarim. These quotations are of the same 
importance for text criticism as would be a manuscript of the whole 
Bible from the second and third centuries. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 13 

volumes of statute law called Mishnah, on which the Tal- 
mud chiefly comments, Tosephta, Mechilta, Safra, Sifri, 
Pirkei Rabbi Eli'-zer, Seder Olam and Meguillath Taanith, all 
of which except Mishnah are called Beritha or "outside" 
of Mishna, and were written in the first half of the second 
Christian century, with additions from the beginning of the 
third. Other and less authoritative commentaries are the 
Targumim, Aramaic and Syriac versions and paraphrases of 
Scriptures ; the post-Talmudical homilies contained in the 
various collections called Midrash and Pesikta; the Moorish- 
Spanish and French* Rabbinical commentators and philoso- 
phers between the tenth and sixteenth centuries ; and above 
all the Massora, which rendered the text legible and intel- 
ligible to the common man by providing it with vocal and 
accentual signs according to authoritative traditions. 

4. As far back into antiquity as the post-biblical litera- 
ture of the Hebrews reaches, no book of the Bible, Nehe- 
miah excepted, was added, omitted, or changed from its 
original name. Also, the twelve Minor Prophets are men- 
tioned as one book in the Beritha, the Septuagint and in the 
book of Joshua ben Sirah (xlix. 35, in Greek 10) ; except 
the Book of Nehemiah, which was still a part of the Book 
of Ezra when the Talmud was written (Sanhedrin 936). 
Samuel and Kings may have been considered one book by 
the Greek translators, but there is no trace of it in these 
sources. The three books, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, 
were divided each into two by Hieronymus (Prol in Reg.). 
In the first Bibles printed in Socinio (1488) and in Brescia 
(1494) the ancient divisions are retained. In the Basel 
edition of 1534, and also in the Bomberg Rabbinical Bibles, 
the subdivisions of Hieronymus were adopted, to be thence 
copied into subsequent prints. In order to retain the tra- 
ditional twenty-four books of the Sacred Scriptures, the 
division of Ezra into Ezra and Nehemiah was accepted, and 
the five books, viz. : Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes and Esther — read in the synagogue on five 
different days of the year — were reckoned one book. A 
Book of Daniel, wherein it was presumed Daniel had prophe- 
sied that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the 



14 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

Persians, is mentioned in Josephus (Antiq. x. viii. 5) as 
having been shown in the Temple of Jerusalem to Alexan- 
der the Great. 

Psalms is divided into five books, viz. : 

1. Chapters i. to xli. 

2. Chapters xlii. to lxxii. 

3. Chapters lxxiii. to lxxxix. 

4. Chapters xc. to cvi. 

5. Chapters cvii. to the end of the book. 

Each of the four books closes with a doxology, " Amen 
and Amen," or "Amen Hallelujah," similar to Nehemiah 
viii. 6, and I. Chronicles xvi. 35, 36, to which is added at 
the close of the second book >£» p Tn rf7£D V?3, ' : Fin- 
ished are the prayers of David, son of Jesse." 

Not all Psalms are Davidian, as their headings show. 
The ancient rabbis mention nine older poets, like Moses in 
Psalm xc. and contemporaries of David. 

There can be little doubt that Psalms were written much 
later, or even up to the time of Simeon the Asmonean, and 
that the five-book division refers to five collections made at 
different times, all of which were accepted in the Canon 
without re-arrangement. Still, as part of the Canon, 
Psalms is counted as one book only, even in the most 
ancient notices ; it is evident, therefore, that those collec- 
tions were made prior to the establishment of the third 
Canon. The division of chapters are different. Psalms had 
147 chapters with them. Psalms i. and ii. were naturally 
counted as one, on account of the beginning of the first and 
the closing of the last being similar. It is uncertain which 
other Psalms were originally connected. 

5. The forty-three books of the Bible were connected in 
twenty-four volumes, as they are now before us in the Mas- 
soretic text. Josephus (Contra Apion, i. 8) reports twenty- 
two books of Scriptures, " which are justly believed to be 
divine," viz. : five books of Moses, thirteen books of the 
Prophets, from Moses to King Artaxerxes, and four books 
containing " hymns to God and the precepts for the con- 
duct of human life." Taking into the second class of 
Scriptures "all that was done between Moses and Artax- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 15 

erxes," his thirteen books must have comprised Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, twelve 
Minor Prophets, Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, 
Ruth and Esther. His third division must have consisted 
of Psalms, Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, either with the 
Song of Solomon or without it, as he never refers to it. 
Lamentations, called in the Talmud Kinnoth, " elegies," was 
counted with Jeremiah 

Hieronymus, although he mentions the twenty-four 
division (Prol. in Reg.),* and also the Hebrew names of the 
various parts thereof, yet adopted the twenty-two division 
of Josephus. The Church, according to the Index Scrip- 
turarum Nicephori, and the Anathasian Index, f retained the 
Hieronymus division, also in the reconstructed Septuagint. 

In all rabbinical sources the twenty-four division only 
is mentioned. It is noted first in the Talmud ( Taanith 8a), 
in connection with Rabbi Adda bar Ahabah (second Chris- 
tian century) as an existing fact. Ben AsherJ reports this 
rabbi as the first Massorite who came after 138 (Christian 
Era) from Palestine to Babylonia.§ It seems possible, 
therefore, that the twenty-four division was established in 
the Academy at Jamnia, under Rabbon Gamliel II. || 

6. The twenty-four books of Scriptures are divided into 
three canons, Thorn, Nebiim and Kethuhim, " Law," " Proph- 
ets " and " Hagiography." This division is as old as the 
post-biblical traditions of the Hebrews. The books belong- 

* See also Wolff, " Bibliotheca Hebraica." 

tCredner, "Zur Geschichte des Canons." 

i Dikdukei Hat-Taamim, Strack Edition, p. 56. 

§It is maintained in Tosephoth to Baba Bathra 22a and Rnshi to 
Kiddushin 726, that there were two rabbis of this name and the 
older one was an older cotemporary of the author of the Mishnah. 

II It is evident from the Talmudical statement Tl^S 1C'p2 that a 
revision of the Canon and the elimination of the books of Solomon 
and Ezekiel from it was proposed and discussed in that academy 
under Gamliel or his immediate predecessor, Jochanan ben Saccai, 
but was not accomplished, perhaps by the opposition of the then 
most important teacher of that day, Akiba ben Joseph, who 
declared even Song of Songs most holy. 



16 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

ing to each canon are named in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 
14). The order of the books following each other in each 
canon, as given in the Talmud, with but one exception, was 
preserved intact by the rabbinical casuists.* 

In Prophets a difference of opinion prevails only as to 
the position of Isaiah in the prophetical canon before Jere- 
miah or after Ezekiel, which begins in the Talmud (in loco 
tit.) and reaches down to the seventeenth century. In 
Hagiography a difference of opinion in the order of the 
books prevails with the Talmud and the casuists on the one 
side and the authors of the written Massora on the other. f 

The printed Bibles (Hebrew) follow the order laid down 
by the rabbis in Talmud and casuists, and place Isaiah before 
Jeremiah. These differences being of no particular impor- 
tance, any further investigation is unnecessary in this place. 

The high antiquity of this three-division is evident from 
the preface of the Grecian translation of Ben Sirah's book, 
about 125 B. C. ; from Josephus (in loco cit.) ; and from the 
rabbinical records of the post-biblical traditions,]; although 
it was not adopted in the Septuagint, Peshito, Vulgata, 
or in the Christian Church. Also in Maccabees II. 13 it 
is maintained that in the library founded by Nehemiah 
there were the "books" of the Kings and the Prophets, 
also the "writings" of David and the "letters" of kings, 
who sent presents to the temple. This shows that the 
" writings " even of David were a different class of scriptures 
from the books of the Kings and Prophets, supposed to have 
been the case in the days of Nehemiah. Ibid. xv. 9, the Law 
and Prophets only are mentioned in connection with Judah 
Maccabee, perhaps because the third Canon was not estab- 
lished yet in his days. 

* See Maimonides, Hilch. Sepher Thorah vii. 15, and Joseph Caro, 
J or eh Deah, Sepher Thorah, 283, 5. 

tSee Amsterdam Rabbinical Bible Koheleth Shelomo, of 1724, pp. 
10, 11; also Wolff in Bibl. Hebr. Part II. p. 51, col. 5: Hierony- 
mus, Prol. in Reg 

XFot instance TnanUh 8a; Baba Bathra 9a and 136; Sabbath, 14, 
and ibid. Talmud, 116'/; and ibid. Yeruthalmi xvi. 1; Nedarim, 111, 
9; Meguillah I. and elsewhere. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 17 

7. This involves a doctrine. The rabbis claimed plenary- 
inspiration for Moses only (Baba Bathra 15a, and Mena- 
coth 30a DrVDI nDW HMD) nDW rrypri), and not also 
for the Prophets. In the synagogue Moses only was read 
and expounded, and sections from the Prophets were read 
in conclusion of exercises in the synagogue or academy to 
be expounded by the Meturgam. (See Rapaport's Erech 
Millin, Art. Nrnt3£tt). In regard to the Hagiography, the 
ancient Balacha was p K^N BHlpH OrD! JHlp |*N 
n^D 1 ?! nrOftll " We read not in the Hagiography except 
from and after the afternoon service," although it was per- 
mitted to take texts from them for the morning homilies.* 
So Hagiography was considered of inferior holiness to 
Prophets (See Yerushalmi in loco cit.), and Prophets inferior 
to the Pentateuch ; so much so that it was maintained that 
Prophets and Hagiography may in future be abolished, 
because the Prophets have not been permitted to add a new 
law to that of Moses ; and also, " If Israel had not sinned 
he would not have been given more than the five Books of 
the Law, and the Book of Joshua (Nedarim 226 and Yerush- 
almi Meguillah I. 7). 

It appears that prior to Rabbi Jehuda the Nassi, it was 
held that the three divisions of the Bible must not be writ- 
ten in one scroll, so that they appear not of equal holiness. f 
Moses Maimonides, according to his responses, as given by 
his son Abraham, in the beginning of Maaseh Rokeach, would 
not permit the three divisions of the Bible to be written in 
one book, because reading in the Prophets or Hagiography, 
parts thereof would be placed upon the Thorah, which is not 
permitted, on account of the superior holiness of the Tho- 
rah. " Prophets and Hagiography must not be placed upon 
the Thorah." (Megillah 27 a) ty DWD1 DWM pjTU JW 

mm *m 

The rabbis of the Talmud called the Prophets tittp *-Q"T 

♦Compare Tosephta Sabbath 14 to Talmud Yerushalmi, ibid. xvi. 
1, and Babli ibid. 1166. 

t Mescheth Sophrim III. and the Talmudical passages noted there 
by Naumburg in his Nachlath Jacob, and by Asulai in his Perush. 



18 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

"Words of Tradition," and not 3J"D3£> iTXiH "the written 
Thorah " or NDHIN, and advanced the hermeneutic rule, 
]¥&*> N 1 ? ("top n2lO iTDD nT\* "We teach not mat- 
ters of the law (basing upon) words of the Prophets." 

The Tiberian Massorites also call the Thorah Oritha, 
" Canon," and the other books of Scriptures Ashlamta, " sup- 
plement or addendum." The Karaites rejected this doctrine, 
and consider the whole Bible equally holy, as the Chris- 
tians do. 

8. Maimonides expounds the respective passages from 
the ancient rabbinical literature to this effect. \ The pro- 
phetical power of Moses, like his mission and his power to 
work miracles, was unique and superior to all prophets who 
lived before or after him. Therefore the Thorah is the holi- 
est book ; it never was and never will be changed or 
replaced; it is eternal. Among the other prophets there 
were higher and lower degrees of perfection, so that not all 
passages of prophetical Scriptures are of equal divinity ; 
they are clearly distinguished by their various introductions. 
He speaks of eleven degrees of prophetical inspiration, all 
inferior to the inspiration of Moses and superior in nine de- 
grees to the authors of Hagiography, including Daniel, the 
Judges and Kings of Israel, with David and Solomon. These 
Hagiographists wrote, spoke or performed deeds of valor by 
a divine impulse and assistance called fcJmpH 111*1 "the 
Holy Spirit," which comprises only the first and second de- 
grees of inspiration, leading to the prophetical degrees. 
Therefore, Hagiography is less divine than Prophets, and 
both less divine than the Thorah. 

In Moreh I. 27, Maimonides points to Onkelos, the first 
Aramaic translator of the Pentateuch (beginning of the sec- 

*(Hagigai 106, Niddah 23a, Baba Kammah b), on which point see 
Skene Luchoth Habberith (T\'h&)- They also called the whole Bible 
fcOpo the " Reading," the literature which is read, in contradistinc- 
tion of the oral laws and traditions, which were spoken and not 
read. 

t Moreh, Part II., chap. 32, e. s. ; Yesodei hat-Thoru, chapters 7 
to 10. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 19 

ond Christian century), as an additional authority for the 
distinction made among the prophetical passages of Scrip- 
tures according to the higher or lower degree of the prophet 
in the scale of inspiration. Then in Part II., chapter 45, 
where he describes the various degrees of prophecy, he sets 
down the Scriptural terms which distinguish the various 
passages and characterize them. 

9. The division of the Thorah into five books is men- 
tioned continually in the Talmud and its sources (Mishna 
Yoma, viii. 1), and especially in Yerushalmi Sotah v. 6: 
" Moses wrote five books of the Thorah, and then again he 
wrote the section of Balak and Balaam." Its antiquity is 
demonstrated by the most ancient translations of the Penta- 
teuch — the Greek, Syriac and Aramaic — by Josephus and 
Philo, and especially by the Samaritan Pentateuch, all of 
which are precisely the same five books, with some slight 
inversions in the Samaritan Pentateuch in favor of Samari- 
tan doctrine. 

(a) JT£'N"n (Bereshith), which is the first word of the 
Bible, called by the Greeks " Genesis," consists of fifty chap- 
ters (modern division), forty-three Sedarim (ancient divi- 
sion) and 1,534 verses, the midst of the book in verses is 
xxvii. 40. Genesis contains the history of creation, the first 
parents and their three sons, the genealogy of the ten antedi- 
luvian patriarchs, the Noachian deluge and covenant, the 
post-Noachian genealogy, origin and location of the seventy 
nations, including the building of the Tower of Babel, the 
subsequent dispersion of the families and the origin of lan- 
guages ; and begins in the twelfth chapter with the life, cove- 
nant and circumcision of Abraham, which together with the 
history of the three generations of his descendants, make the 
contents of the whole book. It is all simple prose except iv. 
22, 24, Lemech's address to his wives, and chapter xlix., the 
blessings of Jacob, which are primitive poetry in a peculiar 
form. 

(b) n)?2& ( Shemoth), which is the first noun in this book, 
called by the Greeks " Exodus," consists of forty chapters 
(modern division), 29 Sedarim (ancient division), 1,209 
verses, the midst thereof is xxii. 27. It contains the history 



20 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

of the Israelites in Egypt, the birth, early fate and calling of 
Moses (Mosheh) and Aaron, the struggle for liberation, the 
miracles, the exode from Egypt, the passage through the Red 
Sea and the Song of Moses, voyage from the sea to the wilder- 
ness of Sinai, including the organization at Marah,* and the 
war against Amalek, water from the rock and the manna ; 
then the revelation on Mount Sinai, the primeval cult (xx. 
21-23) and the first Mosaic legislation, including in xxiii. 
10, 11 Leviticus xxv., the laws of the Sabbath and Jubilee 
years ; and in Exodus xxiii. 14-19 the laws from ibid. xii. 14- 
27, 33-49, and chapter xiii. 1-16, concerning Passover, other 
holy days, and the sanction given to the first-born as the 
priests of the people. Chapter xxiv. closes the history of the 
revelation and the establishment of the covenant. From 
chapter xxv. to the end of the book, with the exception of 
chapters xxxii., xxxiii. and xxxiv. contains all appertain- 
ing to the construction of the national sanctuary and its furni- 
ture, the priestly garments, and the form of worship in the 
tabernacle, being evidently an introduction to Leviticus, 
while the chapters xxxii. to xxxiv. are evidently the conclu- 
sion of Exodus. The whole book, with the exception of the 
song at the Red Sea, is prosaic. 

(c) N^p**) ( Vayikra), which is the first word of the book, 
called in the Talmud Tkorath Kohanim, " the Thorah of the 
Priests," and by the Greeks " Leviticus," consists of twenty- 
seven chapters (modern division), 23 Sedarim (ancient 
division), 859 verses, the midst thereof is xv. 7. It contains 
from chapter i. to vii. ordinances and prescriptions concern- 
ing sacrifices not properly belonging to the tabernacle cult. 
From chapter viii. to x., to which belongs also chapter xvi., 
is the detailed history of the dedication of the tabernacle, 
which actually belongs after Exodus xl., between the verses 
33 and 34. It was placed here as the proper introduction to 
the ritual laws from chapters xi. to xxiv., outlined in chapter 
x. verses 10 and 11 as the duties of the priests, " to distin- 

* Exodus xv. 22-26, which appears to be identical with the organ- 
ization in ibid, chapter xviii., following the advice of Jethro. The 
ancient rabbis are of another opinion. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 21 

guish between the holy and the profane, the unclean and the 
clean, and to teach the children of Israel all the ordinances 
which God hath spoken concerning them by the hand of 
Moses." Chapter xix. specifies particularly the material for 
this third priestly duty. Chapter xxii. contains the laws 
concerning the priests personally and exclusively. Chapters 
xxiii. and xxiv. repeat the commandments of the holy days 
to specify the prescribed sacrifices for those days and the 
priests' duties concerning them. This last chapter concludes 
with the story of the blasphemer in the wilderness and the 
laws connected therewith, and this seems to be the proper 
conclusion of the book. Chapter xxv. on Sabbath and Jubi- 
lee years and the poor laws connected therewith, and chap- 
ter xxiv. containing prophecies of Moses, as the heading of 
the former and the conclusion of the latter shows, belong to 
the close of Exodus, the first Mosaic legislation. Chapter 
xxvii., containing the laws of valuation and ransom of per- 
sons, animals and things vowed to the sanctuary, in which 
the priest is concerned and the year of Jubilee referred to, is 
a proper conclusion of both the first legislation of Moses 
and the laws of the cult, and concludes well the book of 
Leviticus. 

(d) 111DD (Bamidbar) which is the first word in the 
book after " The Lord spake to Moses," called in the Talmud 
D*"T1pfln COlll one of the five parts of the Pentateuch re- 
ferring to the numbering, and by the Greeks " Numbers," 
consists of thirty-six chapters (modern division), 32 Sedarim 
(ancient division), 1,288 verses, the midst thereof is xvii. 
20. This book is fragmentary. It begins with the census 
and organization of the camp in the wilderness, in which 
the Levites are taken separately, which could have been or- 
dained only after the appointment of the Levites instead of 
the first-born, hence after the revolt of Korah, narrated in 
chapter xvi., to which is clearly referred in iv. 28. This 
part, including ordinances concerning the Levites, closes 
v. 1-4, an ordinance concerning the hygiene of the camp, to 
which is added an additional law concerning trespass, which 
actually belongs to Leviticus. Then follow in chapters v. 
and vi. the laws concerning the suspected woman, Sotah, and 



22 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

the Nazirite (Nazir), one who vowed abstinence from wine 
and observed special cleanness and purification. From vi. 
22 to the end of vii. follows a sequel to the dedication of the 
tabernacle, the gifts and sacrifices of the twelve princes of 
the tribes, headed by the oldest liturgical formula on record, 
the priestly benediction. Chapter viii. begins with an addi- 
tional prescription concerning the candlestick in the taber- 
nacle, followed by ordinances for the Levites. Chapter ix. 
contains the ordinance of a substitute Passover in the second 
month for those who were not in condition to observe it 
properly in the first month, and concludes with the signals 
given in the camp by the pillar of cloud upon the tabernacle. 
Chapter x. begins with the signals given in the camp with 
two trumpets, also their use at the sacrifices ; continues with 
the marching regulation, and the names of the captains of 
the tribes, and of the four divisions ; then follows the engage- 
ment of Chobab as a guide in the wilderness, and in con- 
clusion two brief prayers of Moses, one starting the host and 
another calling it to rest. Chapter xi. contains the story of 
the quails, and the constitution of the council of the seventy 
elders. Chapter xii. narrates the murmuring of Miriam and 
Aaron against Moses, and the definition of true prophecy. 
Chapters xiii. and xiv. narrate the story of the twelve spies ; 
chapter xv. is an addition to Leviticus, then the story of the 
Sabbath-breaker in the wilderness, closing remarkably with 
the ordinance of the national fringes and colors. Chapters 
xvi., xvii. and xviii. narrate the story of the Korach revolt 
and its consequences, together with additional ordinances 
for the Levites ; xix. tells the ordinances concerning the red 
heifer and its ashes of purification. With chapter xx. begin 
the historical notices from thirty-seven years later, inter- 
spersed in chapters xxii. to xxiv. by the account of Balak 
and Balaam and his poems. Chapter xxv. contains the 
appointment of Phineas to the high priesthood. With chap- 
ter xxvi. begins the second census and the second legisla- 
tion of Moses, which is continued and closed in Deuteron- 
omy. Except the poems of Balaam it is all prosaic. 

(e) 0**D"7 (Debarim), which is the first noun of the 
book, called also ,TW nJB>JD (Mi*hneh Thnrah), "Review 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 23 

of the Thorah" (Deut. xvii. 18), and by the Greeks "Deuter- 
onomy," consists of thirty-four chapters (modern division), 
twenty-seven Sedarim (ancient division), 955 verses, the 
midst thereof is xvii. 10. 

It contains from chapter i. to xi. and xxvi. to xxxi. 9, the 
last speeches and prophecies of Moses ; from xii. to xxv. the 
continuation of the second legislation of Moses expounding 
and amending the first as required for the practice in the 
land which the Israelites now approached. Chapter xxxi. 
contains the inauguration of Joshua and the delivery of the 
former Thorah to the custody of the Levites, to be kept at 
the side of the ark of the covenant, and the delivery of 
Deuteronomy to the Levites and all the elders of Israel, 
commanding also that it be read in public during the clos- 
ing feast of the Sabbath year. Chapter xxxii. contains the 
last song of Moses ; the first is in Exodus xv. Chapter 
xxxiii. contains the blessing and departure of Moses. 

The whole Thorah contains 5,845 verses, the middle of 
which is Leviticus viii. 8. The middle of all its words is in 
Leviticus x. 16. Darosch closes the first, and Darash opens 
the second half. The middle of all its letters is the vav 
of the word p|~G in Leviticus xi. 42. 

10. There can be no doubt that the divisions of the Bible, 
according to the traditions and documents of the Hebrews, 
reach up to the time of the original establishment of the 
three canons. There exist no traditions and no documents 
in this matter in antiquity or explicitness approximately 
equal to those of the Israelites. 

It is no less certain that the subdivisions of every biblical 
book into major and minor paragraphs, verses, words and 
the counting of letters, were fixed and carefully noted by the 
ancient scribes. It seems, therefore, impossible that the 
text, at least in its consonantal letters, could have been 
amended or interpolated at any time within the two thou- 
sand years of Hebrew post-biblical traditions and docu- 
mentary records. But the question in criticism goes far 
beyond that, and the critics rely more on a priori argument 
than on documentary evidence, a species of reasoning which 
appears illegitimate to us, if applied to the investigation of 



24 Main Divisions of Sacred Scriptures. 

facts and traditions based on the testimony of documents. 
Therefore, before we can discuss the question of the authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch, the authorship of Moses and the 
kindred topics, we must first ascertain all the facts from the 
documents which have a bearing on the main question. 
This, and this only, can lead to approximate certainty. It 
is the entire Hebrew Bible we must know first, to collect 
therefrom the system of facts by which certitude in this 
matter can be obtained. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE FIRST CANON. 

THE term Canon is of Greek origin, and is, in its ecclesi- 
astical application, merely an equivalent for " Thorah," 
the emphatic teaching or instruction, the authoritative guide 
in religion and morals. The term was applied, however, to 
the whole collection of the Hebrews' sacred books, and ex- 
tended also to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament by some 
early Christian writers. The Hebrews always counted the 
Apocrypha among 0\3Wf DH5D, "outside books" (San- 
hedrin 1006), and no quotations from either, except from the 
book of Ben Sirah, occur in the Talmud. The position of 
Prophets and Hagiography in the Canon has been defined. 
Although accepted as divine, yet they are XnO^tSW* " appen- 
dices or supplements, 1 ' to the Canon or Thorah. We con- 
sider them canons with these restrictions, because such is 
the common conception of the term. 

2. The reason for classifying the sacred books besides 
the Thorah, as the Hebrews always did, appears to be 
chronological. They were canonized or edited for the use 
and guidance of the people in different times. Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel and Kings are called 0*38^0 OWDJi 
"Former Prophets," while Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 
Minor Prophets are called DTlfTK D W31 " Latter Proph- 
ets," although the prophecies proper are contained in the lat- 
ter collection, and Daniel is omitted altogether. So are 
Lamentations, Ruth, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and 
Ecclesiastes. According to the chronological order of the 
supposed origin of these books, they could not have been 
classified as they are. The distinction between prophetical 
books and others could not have guided them, as Former 
Prophets contains only prophetical fragments, while Daniel 
claims to be entirely prophetical. We are forced, therefore, 



26 The First Canon. 

to accept the theory that these traditional divisions of the 
Canon had their origin in the relative chronological succes- 
sion of their canonization. Therefore, the historical books 
canonized at an early date are called Former Prophets. The 
whole of Prophets having been canonized prior to Hagiog- 
raphy , assumed a higher and holier character than the latter 
in the estimation, tradition and veneration of the people, 
upon which the Scribes based the dogma of its superiority. 
It is, therefore, evident that the Thorah, occupying the high- 
est position in the people's estimation, tradition and venera- 
tion, must have been Canon in Israel long before the other 
books of the Bible. We know to a certainty that this was 
the case in the time of Judah Maccabee, when the Scroll of 
the Law was the only holy emblem of the Synagogue (I. 
Maccabees iii. 47, 48) ; that the official translators of Ptolemy 
Philadelphus were required to Grecise the Thorah only ; that 
the Samaritans adopted only the Thorah and no other book 
of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that Ezra and Nehemiah 
placed the Thorah only before the assembled people on that 
solemn occasion, and this only was accepted as the Canon. 
(Nehemiah viii. and ix.) In the Temple of Jerusalem the 
reading of sections from the Thorah only was part of the 
divine service (Mishnah in Yoma), and the official correctors 
of manuscripts in the Temple Azarah, as far as we know, 
limited their labor to the Thorah chiefly or exclusively, for 
which they were paid out of the tithe fund. 

Besides all these points, it is a fact that every one of the 
prophets points to the Thorah Canon, and none to the teach- 
ings of his predecessors as being of an equal authority, as 
shall be proved hereafter. 

3. The very first canon, for the existence of which we 
possess documentary evidence, was that of the Patriarchs, 
contained in Genesis, viz. : the Thorah of Adam, the Thorah 
of Noah, the Thorah of Abraham and the other Patriarchs.* 
Basing upon the Thorah of the Patriarchs and progressing 
from the rules of conduct ordained for the individual and 
family to those of a nation and nations, follows the second 

*See Albo's Ikkarim, III. 13, 14. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 27 

part of the first canon, viz. : (a) the Sinaic Thorah, con- 
tained originally in the JVDn 1£JD " Book of the Cove- 
nant,"* now contained in Exodus and Leviticus ; \ and (b) 
D^rTO miTI the Thorah of (or for) the Priests, establish- 
ing the polity and ritual in harmony with the teachings of 
the Thorah, now interconnected with the " Book of the 
Covenant" in these three books of the Pentateuch. Basing 
upon these two canons, reviewing, expounding and amend- 
ing, follows the fourth part of the first canon, viz. (c) : miJH 
HCO the " Thorah of Moses, "J now contained chiefly in 
Deuteronomy, and parts of it also in Numbers. A fifth class 
of writings entering into the composition of the Thorah as a 
whole, and especially in Numbers, consists of the " Scrolls," 
also believed to be of Mosaic origin, mentioned in the Tal- 
mud, miJ ffWO rfaO mm the " Thorah was given (or 
preserved) in various scrolls" (Guitin 60), for which also we 
possess documentary evidence. 

4. The following Mosaic scrolls are noticed particularly : 

(a) The story and poems of Balaam (Numbers xxii. and 

xxiii.), concerning which it is maintained in the Talmud 

quoted above (Bab. B. 14, and Yerushalmi Sotah v. 6), 

" Moses wrote five books of the Thorah, and then again he 

* Exodus xxiv. 15; 2 Kings xxii., xxiii.; 2 Chronicles xxxiv., 

XXXV. 

tin regard to the contents of the Book of the Covenant, see 
Mechilta in Bachodesh, section 3. One of the Tana'im (his name is 
given differently here and in Yalkut) holds that it contained all from 
Genesis i. to Exodus xxiv. Rabbi Jehudah, the Prince, holds it 
contained the commandments only which were given to Adam, the 
children of Noah, Abraham, in Egypt, at Marah, and the other com- 
mandments. Rabbi Ishmael holds it contained also Leviticus xxv. 
and xxvi., as the first verse of xxv. and the last of xxvi. plainly 
show. It appears most likely that originally Exodus xxiv. was the 
end of the book, to which Moses later on added Leviticus xxv. and 
xxvi. 

t See 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; the quotation from HD2 rVWl is from Peut. 
xxiv. 16 ; 2 Kings xxi. 8 ; one Thorah is referred to in Z.T'a and 
then another in TVDTi "H33? DHIX iT)2S T2N rflinn Compare also 
Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4; Joshua i. 7, 8; viii. 30; xi. 15. 



28 The First Canon. 

wrote the chapter on Balak and Balaam," and mentioned 
again in Deuteronomy xxiii. 6; Joshua xxiv. 9, 10, and 
Micah vi. 5, as a well-known fact. 

(b) The Book of the Journeys. It is mentioned espe- 
cially that Moses also wrote by divine command the history 
of the exode from Egypt and the sojourn of Israel in the 
wilderness, as stated in plain terms, Numbers xxxiii. ^fiO*) 
» ♦£) ty Drr^DD 1 ? DfTNyilD DN ne>0 "And Moses wrote 
their goings out according to their journeys at the command 
of Jehovah." This document may have originally contained 
the historical notes connected with these stations in the 
wilderness, as is evident from verses 3-5 and perhaps also 
various laws made known on such different occasions, all of 
which may have been afterward detached and placed else- 
where, as the plan of the whole book required. 

(c) There is noticed in Numbers xxi. 14 rOOfT^/D *)£D 
" The Book of the Wars of Jehovah," and a passage is 
quoted from it. This, critics maintain, must be a book older 
than the Thorah. We maintain that no war of Jehovah 
could have existed prior to Moses, and Moses was particu- 
larly commanded to write, or rather to start, such a book 
right after the first war of Jehovah, which was waged against 
Amalek, as recorded in Exodus xvii. 14.* "And Jehovah 
said, write this as a memorial in the book," etc., which 
could mean a special book only, a book for that purpose, 
viz. : to record the Wars of Jehovah. It stands to reason 
that Moses obeyed the divine command, consequently he 
was the author of the Book of the Wars of Jehovah, as far as 
his time was concerned. 

(d) There existed another ancient book 1£>*J7 *)5D " The 
Book of Jashar," quoted in Joshua x. 12-13, and 2 Samuel ii. 
17-27, which also appears to have been started by Moses, or 
found by him among his people and continued ; as some of 
the rabbis in the Talmud maintain that Jashar stands for 
Jesharim, and it signifies the Book of the Righteous, viz. : 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. According to the extant quota- 

* This is suggested by Abraham Ibn Ezra and Targum Yerush- 
aimi to this verse. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 29 

tions from that book, it must have been a collection of the 
people's didactic and epic poems, to which the song at the 
Red Sea, beginning Oz Yashir, as does also the quotation in 
Numbers (xxi. 17) and another in Joshua (x. 12), may have 
given the name of Jashar. It is stated expressly (Deuter- 
onomy xxxi.) that God commanded Moses to write the last 
song (Deuteronomy xxxii.), and that he did write it that 
day. It seems to be reasonable to suppose that this and 
other songs of Moses started the Book of Jashar as he did 
the Book of Wars. D^BHOfT V"ON'> p ty "Therefore the 
Moshelim said," in Numbers xxi., being a poem, Moshelim sig- 
nifying " poets," as well as " rulers," and in that book 
"mashal," in the case of Balaam Y?CD NK^l signifying 
"poetry," it is very likely anyhow that the passage is a 
quotation from the same Book of Jashar, whose authors 
were called Moshelim. 

(e) "The Book of Generations." nvfrin l£3D (See 
Lekach Tob to Genesis v.) This book is mentioned first in 
Genesis v., although neither the term writing nor book 
occurs again in Genesis.* Genealogies reoccur in Exodus 
and chiefly in Numbers, called in later times fc^JTn *")£3D 
(Nehemiah vii. 5), and must of necessity always have been 
kept among the ancient Hebrews, as all titles to landed 
property and most important political rights depended on 
the individual's authentic family and tribal records. This 
term *)£D could have been added at that particular place 
only to inform us that the Israelites, prior to Moses, possessed 
a written genealogy reaching back to Adam, or that Moses 
started also this official book ; anyhow, it is of Mosaic or 
pre-Mosaic origin, as are other documents accepted into 
Genesis. 

From time to time important national matter may have 
been added to these various scrolls or books. Moses may 
have entered into the Book of the Covenant in his last days, 
the Covenant in the Plain of Moab (Deuteronomy xxviii.), 
or it may have been a separate scroll added to Deuteronomy 
afterward. Joshua may have entered his covenant with 

* Except in the case of the Egyptian C^tDIH Genesis xli. 8. 



30 The First Canon. 

Israel at Shechem in this scroll or book, as is mentioned 
especially (Joshua xxiv. 26) DH^IH DN yCliT DrOI 
DTI 1 ?** min ")5DD n^Xn "And Joshua wrote these words 
in the Book of the Thorah of Elohim," not in the Thorah of 
Moses, as usual in this book. Samuel may have entered his 
constitution of royalty in the same book, as it is stated there 
(1 Samuel x. 25): ^flM 3rD*l "He wrote (it) in the 
book," and not in a book, as this was also a covenant, viz. : 
with royalty. So likewise all the wars of Joshua and after 
him, down perhaps to Samuel, may have been recorded in 
the Book of Wars, and all national hymns, like that of 
Deborah, and David's song, Kesheth, perhaps many now 
incorporated in the Book of Psalms, like Psalm cxiv., may 
have been entered in the Book of Jashar, as these were the 
official records of the nation started by Moses. Other 
special laws of Moses and records of his time, like the 
description of the tabernacle and its furniture, the appoint- 
ment and functions of the Levitical priesthood, the particu- 
lars about the sacrificial polity, may just as well have existed 
in different smaller scrolls from the hands of Moses. 

5. Deuteronomy was originally written and delivered by 
Moses to the priests and all the elders of Israel (Deuter. 
xxxi. 9). It was intended to be the popular canon in the 
hands of all who could read ; to be read publicly at stated 
times (ibid. 10-13; 2 Chronicles, xvii. 7-9) ; to be the text- 
book for the young (Deuter. vi. 7 ; xi. 18, 19) ; to be copied 
-by the king and to be continually before his eyes (ibid. xvii. 
18, 19; 1 Kings ii. 3; Psalms i. 2); to be written on the 
twelve stones taken out of the Jordan* (Deuter. xxvii. 1-8 ; 
Joshua viii. 30-35). This Thorah of Moses was never for- 
gotten and never set aside in Israel, not -even in times of 
prevailing Pagan corruption, also not in the kingdom of 
Israel, and was always read at stated times in the temple as 
late even as in the time of Agrippa I. (Mishnah in Sotah 
vii. 7.) 



* Only that portion, perhaps, which is contained in Deuteronomy 
xxvii. and xxviii., as appears from Joshua viii. 14, where TOTS?] 
rpT^prfl is mentioned with particular stress in explanation of nN 

mm "-on hi. 



Pbonaos to Holy Writ. 31 

The assumed difference of diction which critics suppose to 
distinguish Deuteronomy and characterize it as a work of 
later origin than the former books of the Thorah, is imaginary 
only. The laws in Deuteronomy differ in nowise from those 
in the former books. Wherever any former law is repeated, 
it is amended with some additional provision, as Rabbi 
Ishmael has put down in the Talmud (Sotah 3a) as a 
hermeneutic maxim. The speeches and prophecies of Mo- 
ses differ from his juridical diction, as the orator's style 
must, but they differ not from his previous rhetorical pas- 
sages, as for instance, Exodus xxxii. to xxxiv., Leviticus 
xxvi., and especially Numbers after chapter xx. The last 
Song of Moses differs from the first as the rigid moralist's 
didactic poem differs from his triumphal lyric effusion. But 
suppose there was such a difference, it must be admitted 
that forty years' literary and oratorical practice changes the 
diction of every man of genius. Besides all that the critics 
possess no reliable standard by which to fix the age of any 
portion in the ancient classical Hebrew. 

6. Being once admitted that Moses was the author of the 
Book of the Covenant, the various scrolls mentioned, and 
Book of Deuteronomy, it must also be admitted that he was 
the author of the Book of Genesis, for (a) it is no more and 
no less than a historical introduction to the Mosaic Scrip- 
tures, as the first eleven chapters are the introduction to the 
history of the patriarchs. It establishes the main doctrines 
of the Mosaic dispensation, such as God being supermun- 
dane, Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, the 
Providence, sovereign law-giver and supreme judge of man ; 
man being the highest, spiritual, physical and God-like 
being on earth, standing in perpetual connection with the 
Deity by his understanding and conscience, if he obeys the 
commandments of his Maker ; and especially the covenants 
between God and Noah, God and Abraham, to be inherited 
by their posterity, (b) The next object of Genesis is to 
establish the title of the children of Israel to the land of 
Canaan, which is the very foundation of the Mosaic policy, 
(c) The whole plan of Genesis is to present the regular devel- 
opment and steady progress of the revelation of Deity in the 



32 The First Canon. 

human consciousness, and the consequent generation of the 
ethical principles from the progressive cognition of God's 
nature and will. None of the patriarchs is ethically as per- 
fect as Joseph, for he is the last in the upward scale of the 
development, preceding the Mosaic dispensation, (d) With- 
out this introduction, this knowledge of preceding devel- 
opment, the doings and writings of Moses would appear an 
unintelligible mystery, inexplicable and incomprehensible, 
a state of culture and a stage of reason and ethics issuing 
suddenly from dead rocks, and Moses would appear like a 
wizard wrapped in the deceptive mantel of darkness, (e) In 
all his writings Moses continually points back to the events, 
doctrines and promises recorded in Genesis. It might be 
maintained that somebody prior to Moses wrote the Book 
of Genesis. This, however, is refuted by the constant use of 
the tetragrammaton in the book, which, according to docu- 
mentary evidence, is of Mosaic origin (Exodus iii. and vi. 
2-9). The portions of Genesis in which God is called Elo~ 
him or El Shaddi are ancient documents, which its author 
accepted and incorporated literally, but on no occasion omits 
to state that Elohim or El Shaddi is identical with his 
Jehovah, and does not signify any other Deity. Genesis, like 
the whole of the Hebrew Bible, except some psalms between 
Psalms xlii. and lxxxiii., which are Elohistic, is entirely 
Jehovistic, only the ancient documents are not ; hence Gene- 
sis could not have been written prior to Moses.* Again 
Genesis contains a number of indications that it was written 
outside of Palestine, by one who knew most about Egypt, 
and for readers best acquainted with this country. Genesis 
xxiii. the author finds it necessary to explain Kirjath Arba. 
" This is Hebron in the land of Canaan," which he repeats 
in verse 19 of the same chapter, and again in chapter xxxv. 
verse 27, which only an author outside of Canaan could have 
written. This is also the case in Numbers xiii. 22, where 

*This, of course, is to maintain that the various hypotheses of 
fragments from different authors, distinguished by different names 
of the Deity employed by them, called Jahvistic and Elohistic 
writers, is, aside of the Elohistic portions mentioned above, entirely 
false. The Elohistic Psalms will be noticed under Psalms. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 33 

Hebron is again referred to as having been built seven years 
prior to Zoan of Egypt. The land between the Euphrates 
and the Isthmus of Suez is called in Genesis the land of the 
Eberites, or Hebrews. Abraham is called the Ibri (xiv. 13). 
Joseph is called an Ibri man (xxxix. 14) ; tells of himself 
that he was stolen from the land of the Ibrim (xl. 15), and 
is called by the royal courtier an Ibri slave (xli. 12). So the 
Ibrim are constantly mentioned as being called so by the 
Egyptians. This was certainly not written in Canaan, nor 
was it written east thereof, where the people west of the 
Euphrates were called "Western" Arabi, Arabs. The 
Egyptians naturally changed the " Western " Arabi, Arbi, or 
Erebi into Ebri or Ibri, the people or land " on the other 
side " of the Isthmus. The term Ibri, or Hebrew, can be of 
Egyptian origin only. The author of Genesis never explains 
the names or offices of Egyptian persons, although they 
have no equivalents among the Hebrews, as Pharaoh, Poti- 
phar, the Sar Hat-Tabachim, Sar Ha-Ophim, Sar Ha-Mash- 
kim, and the location or history of Egyptian places, as he 
often very carefully does with names of places and persons 
outside of Egypt ; evidently because he wrote for a people 
well acquainted with Egypt and Egyptian affairs. This is 
evident from the entire history of Joseph and partly also 
from the history of Abraham. These are points of circum- 
stantial evidence proving that Moses, after the exode and in 
the wilderness, must have written the book of Genesis. If 
there occur in it passages which seem to be of a later origin 
than the time of Moses, they must be accounted for from 
another standpoint than the Jahvistic, Elohistic fragment 
hypothesis or any other theory which places not the author- 
ship of this book at any time after the death of Moses. 

7. The Book of the Covenant and perhaps also all the 
other Mosaic documents, called HtJl mi/lfl ^SD ( Deuter. 
xxxi. 26) and not fiKtH PHIAI (ibid, verse 12), as Deuter- 
onomy is called, was delivered to the Levites to be placed at 
the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as part of /VH^ 
" The testimony " upon which the whole of Deuteronomy is 
based, and to which it constantly refers, and not in the 



34 The First Canon. 

hands of all the Levites and Elders; hence it could he 
known and examined by the expounders of the law and the 
priests, but not also by the whole people (Deut. xxxi. 24-26). 
It is quite natural, therefore, that the earliest prophets 
whose books we possess, like Joel, Amos and Hosea, arguing 
against the corruption of religion and law in the kingdom 
of Israel, spoke and wrote in the style of Deuteronomy, and 
referred to it most frequently ; it was the canon of the peo- 
ple, and known as such to everybody, while the other por- 
tions of the first canon — perhaps Genesis excepted — could 
not have been known so popularly.* 

8. Documentary evidence not merely entitles but compels 
us to maintain that all these manuscript scrolls, preserved 
and zealously guarded in the national sanctuary, may have 
been connected with the Mosaic books of Genesis, Covenant, 
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and shaped in the present form 
of the Five Books of Moses, if not Moses himself performed 
this task in the last days of his life ; and that material 
which, after Moses, was added to any of those books or 
scrolls was incorporated in the later books of Joshua and 
Judges, although some of it may have been retained in the 



*It seems that Klpft Kip, in Isaiah i. 13, does not refer to fcOpD 
KHIp in the Thorah, because in the next verse Isaiah calls the holy 
days DD'IJJID, and so or D^n the prophets usually call the feasts or- 
dained in the Thorah ; none refer to them as KlpD &Op. Nor is this 
phrase in this sense found anywhere in the New Hebrew. It appears 
that it must be understood literally " Reading Scripture ; " in this 
sense only the term N"ip*J went down into the New Hebrew. Isaiah 
referred to the then already prevailing custom of reading canonical 
Scripture as part of the divine service of Sabbath and New Moon. 
That he had in this chapter the last song of Moses before his eyes 
is evident from iyoE? and WTKn in verses 2 and 10, and in the pre- 
vious chapter (Deut. xxxi. 11) he saw the commandment of " To read 
this law," which according to verse 9, refers to Deuteronomy. This 
is also evident from Isaiah lxvi., which is chiefly an imitation of 
Isaiah i. ; and there, verse 21, occurs the phrase D^lbn D'OPOn, which 
is taken from Deuteronomy. It appears, therefore, that Deuter- 
onomy chiefly was read as part of the devotional exercises on Sab- 
bath and New Moon. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 35 

Pentateuch, as for instance Genesis xiv. 14, xxxvi. 31 ; * Exo- 
dus xvi. 35, 36 ; Leviticus xxi. ; Numbers xiii. 24, xxi. 3, 25, 
xxxii. 34-42 ; Deuteronomy xxxiv. Unless it be maintained 
that such anachronistic passages came in the Thorah as 
marginal notes first, which transcribers erroneously incorpo- 
rated into the text, for which we possess no proof whatever. 
This must have been done at an early date of Israel's his- 
tory, long before the first books of the Prophetical Canon 
were recognized as holy Scriptures. Still, whenever this was 
done, there exists no reason to suppose that the compilers of 
the Mosaic Canon accepted anything into it which they did 
not verily believe to have come from the hands of Moses or 
his immediate disciples. We have no right to suspect fraud 
or imposition where the object of any book is the highest 
good of mankind, which is the case with the Pentateuch, 
unless forced to do so by the undoubted dicta of reason. It 
is a self-contradictory assumption, that any man or any 
body of men whose sole object is truth and righteousness 
should resort to fraudulent means to reach his or their aim. 
The so-called pious fraud is not applicable to such stern 
preachers of righteousness as Israel's prophets were. In 
order, however, to approach argumentatively the time when 
the Pentateuch received its present form, we must first ascer- 
tain when the books of the Prophetical Canon were written, 
and when they were considered Holy Writ. This is attempted 
in the next chapter. 

*It is possible enough that this passage was written by Moses, 
and the eight kings of Edom, all foreigners — no Edomites reigned in 
the land of Edom before the sons of Esau — assumed the reins of 
government in that country and before the Israelites had an organ- 
ized government, i. e., in the time of Moses. The Melech in this 
passage, as in Deuteronomy xxxiii. 15, refers to Moses (Sepurno). 



CHAPTER III. 

THE FORMER PROPHETS. 

THE eight books of the Prophetical Canon, viz. : Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 
Minor Prophets, were esteemed among the ancient Israelites 
of equal holiness, inferior only to the Thorah, at as early 
a date, indeed, as the reading of holy Scriptures besides 
the Thorah, as part of the divine service, was introduced in 
the synagogues and academies. According to most ancient 
regulations prescribed sections from any of these books 
were read in conclusion of the morning service of every 
Sabbath, biblical holy day, the ninth day of the month of 
Ab, and in conclusion of the afternoon service of any public 
day of fast. Passages from the Prophetical Canon only and 
not also from Hagiography were prescribed to this end. 
But it made no difference from which of the eight propheti- 
cal books such selections were made, which certainly shows 
that they were esteemed of equal holiness. And yet the 
four books called the Former Prophets, because they are 
called so must have been esteemed Holy Writ prior to the 
four called Latter Prophets. This point deserves particular 
attention, especially as radical criticisms, in order to bring 
down the origin of the Pentateuch to a comparatively recent 
date, entirely misconstrue these historical books. 

2. Outside of the Bible we possess but one document on 
the dates, when, and the authors by whom the various books 
of the Bible were written, and this is the record of ancient 
tradition in the Talmud, Baba Bathra, 146 and 15a, which, 
literally rendered, reads thus : 

" Moses wrote his own book, the section of Balaam, and the 
Book of Job. The latter is contradicted by various teachers, 
and finally by the principal Massorites of Tiberias, Rabbis 
Jochanan and Eleazar, who maintain HTf rf?\} ^JfD !3VN 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 37 

" Job was among those who returned from the Babylonian 
captivity," as appears also from Job xlii. 10, and from its 
position in the third Canon. 

" Joshua wrote his own book and the last eight verses in 
the Thorah." This is amended on the next page in the Tal- 
mud to the effect that the last verses of Joshua were written 
partly by Eleazar and partly by Phineas, the high priests. 

" Samuel wrote his own book, also Judges and Ruth ; " 
which is amended on the next page of the Talmud to the 
effect that the Prophets Nathan and Gad wrote parts of the 
book Samuel, as stated expressly in 1 Chronicles xxix. 29. 

" David wrote a book of Psalms, in which he incorporated 
the psalms of ten older authors. 

" Jeremiah wrote his own book, Kings and Lamenta- 
tions. 

" Hezekiah, the king, and his associates wrote Isaiah, 
Proverbs (see Proverbs xxv. 1), Song of Solomon and Ec- 
clesiastes. 

" The Men of the Great Synod wrote Ezekiel, Twelve Minor 
Prophets, Daniel and Esther." 

" Ezra wrote his own book (including Nehemiah) and the 
genealogies of Chronicles up to himself D*0*fl HD1 *?& DJT 
t? I)?" (see Rashi). 

It must be understood that 3HD or "OrD, " ne wrote or 
they wrote," in this or other Talmudical passages, does not 
always refer to authorship ; it refers, also, to the editorship, 
the parties that collected and compiled the manuscripts of 
any author. 

3. It is evident from the books of " Wars of Jehovah," 
"Sojourns," "Genealogies," and "Jashar or Moshelim," 
that official and cotemporary chronography was one of the 
public institutions in Israel. This appears also from Joshua 
and Samuel, of whom it is reported that they wrote into 
such existing books, and from the above Talmudical tradi- 
tion, which admits that Joshua wrote into the Thorah (see 
also Ramban's commentary to Numbers xxi. 1), and that 
the two high priests added to the records of Joshua. No 
such official records are mentioned in the period of the 
Judges, although frequent references to them occur in the 



38 The Former Prophets. 

Book of Judges (v. 4, 5 ; vi. 7-10; xi. 14-27). Still, in that 
very ancient song of Deborah (chapter v.), a host of en- 
gravers of the law on stone or metal, DpplTO, presiding 

judges, piD ^ D*2G?V, and expert scribes, t0D£O DOE*1D 
")£1D, are expressly mentioned,* so that cotemporary chro- 
nography also in that period can hardly be doubted, espe- 
cially as the variety of styles in the different accounts in the 
book point distinctly to various larger chronicles from which 
the narratives were epitomized. 

From and after King David the Scribe (IfilD) and Chro- 
nographer (T^frO) or Chancellor were members of the 
royal council. Solomon had even two scribes (1 Kings iv. 
3), and that official is there yet in the time of Jeremiah 
(xxxvi. 9, 12 ; lii. 25), to the very end of the two kingdoms. 
Both the chronicles, and in many instances also the chro- 
nographers are mentioned. In the Book of Kings only three 
such official and cotemporary chronicles are referred to, to 
the very end of the book, viz. : " The Book of the Words of 
Solomon " (1 Kings xi. 41) ; " The Book of the Chronicles of 
the Kings of Israel " (ibid. xiv. 15 ; xv. 31), and " The Book 
of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (ibid. 1 xiv. 18). 

In Chronicles the two latter sources are referred to (1 
Chronicles ix. 1 and 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 8), that is up to 
King Joiakim, exactly as the author of Kings does, to which 
he also refers in the terms " The Book of the Kings of Judah 
and Israel " (2 Chronicles xvi. 11), also in the terms I^D 
D^DJl and calls it (xxvi.' 27) " A Midrash of the Book of 
Kings." f Besides which the author of Chronicles refers to 
the books of prophets who wrote the cotemporary history 
of certain kings. He mentions Samuel, Nathan and Gad as 
writers of the history of David (1 Chronicles xxix. 29) ; 
Nathan, Abiah Hashiloni and Eddi having written the his- 
tory of Solomon, (2 Chronicles xi. 29) ; Shemaiah and 

* Also 1 Chronicles ii. 55. py< i^py DnQlD nnD Wi 
t It is evident that Midrash refers to the synopsis and not to the 
primary sources, in this case to our Book of Kings, as in the place 
referred to and beginning of next chapter, the author of Chronicles 
copies literally from 2 Kings xii. 20 and xiv. 1-7. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 39 

Eddo — the latter perhaps identical with Eddi — having writ- 
ten the history of Rehabeam (ibid. xii. 15) ; the same Eddo 
wrote also the history of Abiah, the son and successor of 
Rehabeam, in a separate book called " Midrash Eddo." 
The history of the other kings was not preserved in separate 
-books known to the author of Chronicles ; it was recorded 
in the official chronicles by cotemporary prophets, as special 
mention is made of Jehu, son of Hanani, who inscribed from 
his own book the history of King Jehoshaphat in the offi- 
cial chronicle (2 Chronicles xx. 34), and the prophet Isaiah 
wrote the history of Uziah in the same manner (2 Chronicles 
xxvi. 22), and the history of Hezekiah, in the Book of Isaiah, 
then called p£K p irVJ^ JIM according to' the four 
words at the head of this book, and also in the official 
chronicle (ibid, xxxii. 32). The history of King Menasseh 
was written by various prophets, one of whom, called Hozai, 
is mentioned in Chronicles xxxiii. 19. All these historical 
sources must have been extant to the end of the fourth cen- 
tury B. C, as the author of Chronicles makes copious 
abstracts from them, including many names and sayings of 
prophets and other prominent persons not mentioned in the 
preceding historical books, as for instance in the genealogies 
up to chapter ix. and the various historical notes connected 
with them, all of which he states (ix. 1) " are written in the 
Book of Kings of Israel and Judah." So the same author 
continually refers to books from which he copies, and not to 
mere traditions or opinions. The institution of cotemporary 
official chronography, it appears from the closing passage 
of 1 Maccabees, was permanent in Israel, and was there yet 
in the time of John Hyrcan, whose official day book is men- 
tioned there. 

4. The historical books of the Bible are synopses from 
official and cotemporary records in some instances, or a 
connection of some books into one — as is the case with 
Joshua and Samuel — from cotemporary writers. They were 
not re-written or corrected by any one man or any set of 
men at any time. Aside of some errors which might have 
crept in by copyists during thousands of years, they are be- 



40 The Former Prophets. 

fore us to-day exactly and literally as they came from the 
hands of their respective authors, and furnish us with the 
consecutive history of the Israelites from 1450 to 585 B. C, 
as complete and truthful as no other people of that millen- 
ium has left a record. Each book continues the history 
from the end of the former, and each author evinces a full 
knowledge of his predecessors. All of them have in common 
the aim and object which is not only to write history, but to 
produce the historical evidence in support of the fact, that 
Israel's life, prosperity and success depended on its adhe- 
rence to the divine covenant and obedience to its laws and 
teachings, and all national miseries and failures down to the 
destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile resulted 
from disobedience, desertion and rebellion. Therefore they 
are both popular text-books of history and divine canons. 
Each of these books is different from the others in diction, 
plan and terminology, consequently no one person could 
have been the author of any two of them. Each has its 
own exceptions from the rules of grammar and peculiarities 
of construction ; hence none was re-written by critics or 
literary editors, none went through the hands of a corrector. 
These books are before us in their antique originality. Had 
they been revised at any time they would be uniform, correct 
and smooth. Had they been written or re-written at any 
time by any one man or any one body of men, they could 
not differ so entirely in plan as Judges does from Joshua 
and Kings from Samuel, which are as different as is the 
synoptic from chronographer. 

5. Joshua contains three different elements from three 
different records : (a) The original records of Joshua, 
added by him to the various public records established by 
Moses; (b) the geographical and topographical records 
referring to the conquest and division of the land (Joshua 
xii.-xxi.), which could not have been written at any later 
date, as the whole claim of the families to certain lands 
always depended on it ; and (c) the Book Jashar quoted in 
Joshua x. 12-14 as the source for the miracle of sun and 
moon standing still. The book as now before us was cer- 



Pronaos to Holy "Writ. 41 

tainly not compiled or edited by Joshua, nor was the author 
of the Joshua records different from him who wrote the last 
chapter of Deuteronomy, as a cursory inspection of this and 
Joshua i. sufficiently proves. 

It is certain that Joshua is older than Judges, which is 
chronologically a continuation of the former. The last words 
of Joshua are quoted in Judges (ii. 6-9), and the beginning 
of this chapter is in substance from Joshua xxiii., as the 
notice from Caleb taking Hebron (Judges i. 10-15) is from 
Joshua xiv., xv. 13-19. 

6. The Book of Joshua is before us in twenty-four chap- 
ters (modern division), fourteen Sedarim (ancient division), 
656 verses, the middle of which is xiii. 26. Its contents are : 

Chapter i. God's charges to Joshua and to his people. 

Chapter n. Sending and returning of the spies from Jeri- 
cho. The story of Rahab. 

Chapters in. and iv. Marching from the camp east of the 
Jordan, crossing that river, and erecting the twelve stones 
taken from its bottom at the west side thereof. 

Chapter v. Circumcision and the Passover at Gilgal, and 
the vision of Joshua. 

Chapter vi. Capture of Jericho. 

Chapter vn. Reverse before the City of Ai ; crime and 
punishment of Achan. 

Chapter viii. Capture of Ai, erection of the altar, writing 
the law upon the stones, and pronouncing the blessings and 
the curses on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal. 

Chapter ix. The Gibeonites and the covenant with them. 

Chapter x. War and victory over Adoni Zedek and four 
other kings ; sun and moon standing still. 

Chapter xi. Jabin, King of Hazar, and other kings de- 
feated in battle and slain. 

Chapter xn. Remuneration of Joshua's victories. 

Chapter xiii. to xxi. Division of the land among the 
tribes, and appointing cities of refuge. 

Chapter xxn. The two and a half tribes dismissed to 
their homes beyond Jordan, the altar they erected, and the 
controversy to which it led. 



42 The Former Prophets. 

Chapters xxiii. and xxiv. Public meetings, addresses of 
Joshua, reaffirmation of the covenant, death and burial of 
Joshua and Eleazar the high priest. 

According to tradition, the wars of Joshua lasted seven 
years, the division of the land and taking possession thereof, 
also took seven vears. Then the Mosaic law was put in 
force and the tabernacle erected in Shiloh. 

Diction and phraseology of this book are similar to that 
of Moses, although less nervous. It is without documentary 
evidence to speak of a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch ; 
and linguistically, there is no more similarity between 
Joshua and Pentateuch than what is ordinarily the case in 
the writings of a weaker disciple comparing to those of his 
original and more powerful master. 

In order to approximate the time when the Book of Joshua 
was written, we must ascertain first when Judges was writ- 
ten. Therefore, we turn now to the second book of the 
prophetical canon. 

7. The Book of Judges is before us in twenty-one chap- 
ters (modern division), fourteen Sedarim (ancient division), 
618 verses, half of which is x. 8. Its contents are : After 
the introduction (see above), the book begins iii. 7, with the 
exploits of Othniel ben Kenaz and his successors, Ehud ben 
Gera and Shamgar ben Anoth, the three judges following 
Joshua. 

Chapter iv. Contains the story of Deborah and Barak. 

Chapter v. The song of Deborah. 

Chapter vi. to viii. Is the record of the Gideon period. 

Chapter ix. Contains the story of the usurper, Abime- 
lech, and the parable of Jotham. 

Chapter x. Opens with a mere mention of two succeeding 
Judges, Thola and Jair, and closes with reports of prevailing 
corruption and invasion, leading to the appointment of Jeph- 
thah. 

Chapters xi. and xn. Is the record of Jephthah, with the 
story of his daughter, closing chapter xii. with a mere men- 
tion of the three succeeding Judges, Abzon (said to be the 
Boaz in Ruth), Ailon and Abdon. 

Chapter xin. to xvur. Is the record of the Samson period. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 43 

From chapter xvii. to the end of the book two stories are 
appended, to which there is no reference made in the body of 
the book, although they narrate incidents which are sup- 
posed to have occurred at the very beginning of that period, 
when Phineas was high priest, and differ radically in spirit, 
phraseology, tone and object from the body of the book. 
No reader can help seeing that these two appendices are 
later productions, and were added for a purpose to the Book 
of Judges. 

The author of Judges mentions neither Eli nor Samuel, 
although they were the very men he must have glorified, 
according to the plan of his book, if there existed no par- 
ticular reason for ignoring them. 

8. The author of Judges is an outspoken monotheistic, 
theocratic patriot. He evidently transcribed his narratives 
from the Book of Wars of Jehovah, where cotemporaries of 
the respective events recorded them. Therefore he has no 
records from the long intervals of peace and evident pros- 
perity. He claims that all national misfortunes and miser- 
ies were divine retributions for Israel's abandonment of the 
true God and adopting pagan cults ; and that salvation 
from misery was always effected by Judges who were faith- 
ful to God and succeeded in reforming the people ; and this 
is the tendency and purpose of the entire book. He is the 
stern theocratic democrat. He dwells with special delight on 
Deborah on account of her brilliant genius and God-inspired 
patriotism. Gideon, Jephthah and Samson, heroic men of 
the people, true to Israel's cause, are his central figures, 
while he barely mentions the names of most of the Judges, 
and has more to say of the filial devotion of Jephthah's 
daughter than of the judges governing forty-five years prior 
to Jephthah. He literally pours out his abhorrence of the 
monarchical, anti-theocratic institution in narrating the 
story of the first usurper, Abimelech, the son of Gideon, and 
a concubine, who is the first fratricide after Cain, in sacred 
history, much more criminal than Adam's first-born. His 
supporters and partisans are paganized rebels. The treas- 
ures in support of his cause are taken from the temple of 
Baal. He is the first bloodthirsty despot in Israel's history ; 



44 The Former Prophets. 

within three years of his reign he slays thousands of his 
followers, to be himself slain at last at the hands of a woman. 
None of the reigning judges is blamed by the author. 
Throughout the book the theocratic democrat, the invincible 
man of righteousness, speaks the blunt and stern language 
of a heroic age. 

9. Entirely different are the language and tendency of the 
two appendices, evidently written by another author. He is 
no synoptic. He writes extensive stories containing many 
particulars of single events. He evinces his animosity to 
the democratic form of government by saying four times : 
" In those days there was no king in Israel," to which he 
adds twice : " Every man did what seemed right in his sight," 
which is to say, then confusion and anarchy reigned. With 
undisturbed equanimity and without a word of blame, he 
tells the story of Michah's idol, how the Danites stole it and 
its priest and worshiped it all the time that the tabernacle 
was at Shiloh. He is evidently not the same man who wrote 
the main portion of Judges. 

The second story, about the concubine slain at Gibeah 
and the subsequent murderous execution of justice on the 
tribe of Benjamin, fully betrays the intention of the author. 
Besides his anti-democratic sentiments, which he makes the 
groundwork of both stories, he makes out a case of what 
happened in Gibeah so similar to that of Sodom, when the 
angels had come to Lot, that the story borrows both the inci- 
dents and phrases from that part of Genesis (Judges xix. 
8-27). Then his evident intention is to bestow as much 
praise as the situation would afford on Levy, Judah and 
Ephraim, and as much blame and disgrace as could be 
afforded on the tribe of Benjamin and the men of Jabesh 
Gilead (ibid. xxi. 5-12). Their crime was that of Sodom, 
their punishment and degradation were complete ; a mere 
remnant of them was permitted to live by the grace and 
mercy of the people, and even those had to steal women and 
take them for wives. This story has certainly not the same 
author who incorporated in his narratives the words of 
Deborah, "After thee, Benjamin, among thy people " (Judges 
v. 14). Another remarkable point is that the Book of 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 45 

Judges has no mention whatever of any high priest or Levite, 
while in this appendix we meet again the Levite and the 
high priest Phineas (xx. 28). 

There exists internal evidence in Judges to the effect that 
the body of the book is older than the appendices. In Judges 
i. 20 we read, " And the Jebusite dwelt with the children of 
Benjamin in Jerusalem n?H DVH 1J7 to this very day," 
which must have been prior to the reign of David. In one of 
the appendices (ibid, xviii. 31) we read that the Danites wor- 
shiped the idol of Michah, as long as the house of God was 
in Shiloh, as a reminiscence of days past, and not DVJl *iy 
TVtl consequently the second event transpired long after the 
first, and the writers so dated it. Again, as the song of 
Deborah bears testimony to the Sinaic revelation, the tribal 
divisions and the state of culture in her days, and Jephthah 
in his message to the King of Ammon (Judges xi. 12-28) 
bears testimony to the events in the last year of Moses, so 
Samuel (1 Sam.xii. 8-11) and the author of Psalms lxxxiii.* 
confirms the stories narrated in Judges. But the stories 
narrated in the two appendices are not as much as referred 
to any more anywhere in the Bible. 

These appendices must have been written at a time when 
it was deemed necessary to denounce the democratic form 
of government, the tribe of Benjamin and the city of Jabesh 
Gilead, to laud the monarchical institution and to compli- 
ment the tribes of Levi, Judah and Ephraim. This concur- 
rence of events happened at no time in Israel except during 
the reign of King David. Then the theocratic democracy 
was yet strong in number and dissatisfisd, as is evident 
from the revolutions under Absalom and Sheba ben Bichri ; 
Benjamin was David's enemy; Jabesh Gilead was loyal to 
Saul ; Levy, Judah and Ephraim were David's strongholds. 
There can be no reasonable doubt as to the time when those 
appendices were written, nor as to the reason why they were 

* This Psalm could have been written only in the earlier time of 
David's reign, as is evident 'from the names of the hostile nations 
mentioned therein. Compare 1 Samuel viii. 7! EX E3 in verse 9 of 
that Psalm refers to Aram Zobah, which was under Assyrian 
dominion then, and must have been assisted by Assyrians. 



46 The Former Prophets. 

attached to the Book of Judges, which is the very glorifica- 
tion of theocratic democracy, credits Benjamin with one of 
the earliest saviors of Israel (Judges iii. 15), and records the 
words of Deborah, ytiDpl }'0^3 "pHK 

10. It is easily understood why the tradition makes Sam- 
uel the author of Judges. The book was written for the peo- 
ple, to whom the official chronicles were inaccessible, by an 
uncompromising and zealous advocate of the theocratic 
democracy, an implacable opponent of the pagan corrup- 
tions, monarchy and the priesthood, with the avowed inten- 
tion to convince the masses of the real cause of all national 
miseries, and to uphold and maintain in their original purity 
the theocracy and the covenant. 

This man could have been Samuel only ; there is no other 
known in history. He was the reformer of his people, with 
him idolatry vanished out of Israel for a century. He was 
the last pillar of theocracy and opponent of monarchy to the 
very end. He was the opponent of priesthood and almost 
overthrew it, to which he was forced by the demoralization 
of the sons of Eli, and the fact that the first royalist rebels 
were chiefly Levites, as the city of Sichem belonged to the 
Levites of the family of Kehath (Joshua xxi. 21). His hand 
is visible throughout the book. The authority of the pro- 
phet made the book a popular oracle. It was canon as 
soon as it had reached the people (1 Samuel iii. 20). There- 
fore when royalty struggled against democracy, as was the 
case in the time of David, it was necessary to neutralize the 
effect of that book, which was attempted by the addition of 
that appendix.* 

The book presents also an argument e silentio in favor of 
the authorship of the prophet Samuel, being written in the 
lifetime of the high priest Eli. It closes with the death of 

*This Dan, the name which the Danites gave to the city of Laish, 
in the northwest of Palestine, in the valley of Beth Rahab, not far 
from Zidon (Judges xviii. 28), is not identical with the Dan in Gene- 
sis xiv. 14 and Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1, which is the name of a moun- 
tain range in the northeast of Palestine, at the head of Gilead, near 
Hobah, west of Damascus. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 47 

Samson, mentions neither Eli nor Samuel, with whom the 
period of the Judges closes, although the author records 
every name of the Judges from Joshua to Samson. Had the 
book been written or transcribed by a later author, he must 
certainly have closed it with some account of the two last 
Judges in Israel. If Samuel was its author he must have 
written it during* the lifetime of Eli, whose administration 
being not matter of history yet. The same kind of argu- 
ment points to the high priest Phineas as the compiler of the 
Book of Joshua in its present form. The book closes with 
the account of the death and burial of Joshua and Eleazar 
the high priest, makes no mention of Phineas, although he 
was acting high priest, at least in the latter days of Joshua 
(Joshua xxii. 13). Had the book been written, re-written 
or compiled by any later author, he must certainly have 
added some account of the third high priest in Israel. 

11. Joshua having undoubtedly been written prior to 
Judges, it was certainly compiled and finished in its present 
form in the period between Joshua and Samuel. Its diction 
points to a disciple of Moses, and this could well have been 
Phineas, the high priest, of whom the tradition admits that 
he wrote the close of the book. There is no established rule 
in the canon of Biblical criticism to set aside the facts that 
Phineas was the last editor of Joshua, that Samuel wrote 
Judges, and an anonymous author in the Davidian time 
wrote the appendix with the avowed intention of counteract- 
ing among the people the democratic tendencies of the book, 
the prevailing sympathies for the tribe of Benjamin and the 
inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead.* 

All this, however, does not prove that Joshua was not the 
author of the material compiled in the book. The whole 
record of the conquest of Canaan must have been inscribed 
in the national records, called " The Book of the Wars of 
Jehovah" (see page 28). The last speeches of Joshua were 
certainly added to the " Book of the Covenant " as main- 



* See the author's History of the Israelitish Nation, Appendix to 
Period II., ''Literature," Albany, 1854. 



48 The Former Prophets. 

tained in the book (xxiv. 26). The quotation from the Book 
of Jashar is marked (x. 12-14). The topographic portion 
was written by the men appointed by Joshua at Shiloh 
(xviii. 8, 9) and must have originally been added to the 
national records in the Book of " Sojourns." All this ma- 
terial was taken from the original records and compiled into 
the one Book of Joshua. Some notes and explanatory 
remarks of the compiler may have been added, but there 
exists no evidence whatever that the original material had 
been changed or interpolated, nor does any rational ground 
exist to suspect the compiler's stern honesty and veracity. 
We may, therefore, fix the following dates : 

Joshua was written by him and his scribes, and compiled 
in its present form by the high priest Phineas 1400 B. C. 

Judges, being an abstract and epitome from the national 
records, was written in its present form by the prophet Sam- 
uel 1075 B. C. 

The appendices to the Book of Judges were written — 
author unknown — 1025 B. C. 

With the authentication of these two books we gain one 
more argument, and a very important one, in favor of the 
authenticity of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic origin. We 
also have an intimation, when the original material was 
placed in its present form, viz. : when the post-Mosaic 
material was separated from the Mosaic records ; hence 
either in the time of Phineas or of Samuel. The former 
seems most likely, for the latter the evidence of history, 
especially of literature, speaks most distinctly, as we shall 
ascertain later on. 

12. Joshua in its first verse announces itself as the con- 
tinuation of Deuteronomy. Judges in its first verse an- 
nounces itself as the continuation of Joshua. With Samuel 
begins a new book, in style different from Deuteronomy, 
and in plan and design different from the synoptic Judges, 
which resembles the first sixteen chapters of Samuel in the 
one point, that the same theocratic-democratic spirit, the 
same opposition to king and priest, characterizes both of 
them. This outspoken tendency of the two books is sum- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 49 

cient evidence that they were not written in the time of the 
kings and hereditary high priests.* 

13. The Book of Samuel is before us in 30 and 24 chapters 
(modern division), 34 Sedarim (ancient division), 1,506 
verses, the middle of which is 1 Samuel xxviii. 24. It begins 
with the narrative of the parents of Samuel coming from 
their home to Shiloh to sacrifice there. 

Chapter n. begins with the prayer of Hannah and the his- 
tory of Samuel at Shiloh, in connection with the high priest, 
Eli, and his two sons. 

Chapter in. contains the first prophecy of Samuel and its 
delivery to Eli. 

Chapter in. contains the narrative of the war of the Philis- 
tines upon Israel, the defeat of the latter, capture of the ark, 
death of the two sons of Eli, and of Eli himself. 

Chapters v. and yi. describe the plagues which came on 
the Philistines on account of the ark, and how they returned 
it with gifts and sacrifices, resulting in the death of 50,000 
(?) of the men of Beth Shemesh. 

Chapter vn. narrates how after the ark had been twenty 
years at Kiriath Jearim, the people reformed ; Samuel prays 



* The author of Samuel certainly understood the Levitical laws of 
Moses to the effect that the priesthood belonged to the tribe of Levi, 
one of them to be high priest and he to be assisted by his sons, as 
is expressly stated in Deuteronomy xxxiii. In Deuteronomy occurs 
always the phrase, "The Priests-Levites," as also in Isaiah lxvi. 
In Leviticus it is " Aaron and his sons," and not their descendants, 
to whom the priesthood is given. When this dignity was conferred 
on Phineas, the grandson of Aaron, it was for special cause, as 
narrated in Numbers xxv. 10, and not as a birthright. When, after 
Phineas, again a high priest is mentioned, it is Eli and his two sons 
and no other priest, and it is not certain even that Eli was a descend- 
ant of Aaron, although the custom may have in after times become 
law, that the sons of Aaron only should be priests and the high- 
priesthood be hereditary in one family, as was the case from and 
after King Solomon to the time of the Maccabees. It does not seem 
to be so ordained in the Levitical laws of Moses, and Samuel, who 
was a Levite, did perform priestly functions (1 Samuel vii. 9 ; x. 8; 
xi. 15). 



50 The Former Prophets. 

for them at Mizpah, leads them in battle against the Philis- 
tines and subdues them, and he becomes the judge of the 
people. 

Chapter viii. The people want a king ; Samuel's opposi- 
tion and his warning. 

Chapter ix. Beginning of Saul's history, and 

Chapter x. he is anointed King of Israel and is accepted 
among the sons of the prophets ; Samuel writes the royal 
constitution in one of the national records. 

Chapter xi. Nahash, the Ammonite, invades Gilead and 
besieges the city of Jabesh. Saul comes to its assistance, 
defeats the besiegers and liberates the city, which causes 
Samuel to call the people to Gilgal to renew the covenant 
with royalty, to which strong opposition had been mani- 
fested. 

Chapter xn. Speech and miracle by Samuel at Gilgal. 

Chapters xiii. and xiv. Valorous deeds of Saul and his 
son, Jonathan, in the war against the Philistines with his 
standing army of 3,000 men, during the second year of his 
reign. Mistakes of Saul. 

Chapter xv. Invasion and overthrow of Amalek. Sam- 
uel prophesies the mournful end of Saul and his house. 

Chapter xvi. Samuel anoints secretly David, son of Jesse, 
King of Israel. David at the court of Saul. 

Chapter xvn. The Philistines again invade Palestine. 
Goliath slain by David, which ends the campaign. 

Chapter xvm. David returns to Saul's court, marries the 
king's daughter and becomes the intimate friend of the 
king's son, Jonathan. 

Chapter xix. Saul attempts to slay David ; his wife saves 
his life, and he seeks shelter with Samuel at Najoth. Saul 
sends messengers there to capture him, and David returns 
to Jonathan. 

Chapter xx. Covenant of friendship between David and 
Jonathan. 

Chapter xxi. David's flight to Nob, then to Achish, King 
of Gath ; 

Chapter xxn., and is finally compelled to seek refuge in 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 51 

the cave of Adullam, where he becomes the chief of a band 
of voluntary warriors. 

Chapter xxm. to xxvu. Various exploits of David, and 
his persecution by Saul. 

Chapters xxvin. and xxix. The ends of Saul and Jonathan 
in another war with the Philistines, and last exploits of 
David at Ziklag. 

Second Samuel begins with the end of Saul and Jonathan, 
account thereof being brought to David ; David's elegy, 
Kesheth. 

Chapter n. to rv. Narrates the end of the house of Saul 
while David is King of Judah, in which are prominent Ish 
Bosheth, son of Saul, and Abner, his chief captain, and Joab, 
with his brother, Ashhael, on the side of David. 

Chapter v. to xx. Contains the history of David as King 
of all Israel. 

Chapter xxi. is an appendix to this history. 

Chapter xxn. contains the great hymn of David. 

Chapters xxm. and xxiv. contain a collection of fragments, 
historical and poetical, appertaining to the history of David. 

The history of David, closing abruptly in chapter xx. with 
the end of the rebellion under Sheba, son of Bichri, is brought 
to a close in 1 Kings chapters i. and ii. and is supplemented 
in the Book of Chronicles. 

14. There exists no tenable ground to contradict the tra- 
dition that Samuel wrote his book and the Book of Judges. 

1 Samuel xvii. to 2 Samuel v. 3 is from the Book of Gad, 
different in style and tone from the genuine Samuel. Gad 
followed David in his early exploits (1 Samuel xxii. 5), and 
was undoubtedly the historian of that period in David's life. 

2 Samuel v. 4 to 1 Kings iii. 28 is from the Book of Nathan, 
who is named as the chronographer of both David and 
Solomon (1 Chronicles xxix. 29 and 2 Chronicles ix. 29). 
Gad is mentioned no more up to 2 Samuel xxiv. 11-22 ; but 
that story, placed there among the appendices, certainly be- 
longs chronologically to 2 Samuel vi., * and Gad is always 

* See also 1 Chronicles xxi. 19. 



52 The Former Prophets. 

called Choseh and not Nabi, the official prophet, which 
Nathan was after David was anointed King of all Israel (2 
Samuel vii.), and he maintained himself also for some time 
under Solomon. The three narrators, although differing 
decidedly in style, diction and phraseology — the Nathan por- 
tion being the most polished and elegant — all wrote like 
eye-witnesses thoroughly acquainted with the most minute 
details in regard to persons and places mentioned. They have 
in common antagonism to the house of Saul, which proves 
that they wrote before the division of the kingdom; after 
this event there was no further occasion for that enmity. The 
last writer, the Prophet Nathan, knows King Solomon for 
bis piety and wisdom only (1 Kings iii. 3, 5, 28), knows 
nothing of his idolatry (1 Kings xi. 1-13) and his despotism 
(xii. 1-4) ; nor does he know anything of the immensity of 
his wisdom (1 Kings iv. 9-14) and his literary productions. 
He evidently wrote during the earlier days of the reign of 
Solomon. This is undoubtedly the time when the Book of 
Samuel, as it is before us, was compiled. The same Prophet 
Nathan seems also to be the author of Psalms i., ii. and lxxii., 
which, in connection with the first chapters of Kings and 2 
Samuel vii. 12-15, explain one another well in regard to 
time.* 

15. Among the various internal proofs that Samuel wrote 
his portion of the book prior to the rise of Zion and the tem- 
ple, as for instance the Jltil DVJl 1^ in 1 Samuel v. 5, and 
vi. 15, there is the frequent mention of Bamoth, " high places," 
and the building of altars to Jehovah outside of the national 
sanctuary, without any censure or objection, which no 
prophetical writer after Samuel would have permitted to 
pass uncensured, as is evident from the Book of Kings. 
Samuel builds an altar (1 Samuel vii. 17) at Ramah, has 
there his Bamah (ix. 12 e. s.) while there was another Bamah 
in Gilead, where the sons of the prophets worship (x. 13), 
and the sanctuary was in Nob (xxi.). Saul also built an 
altar to Jehovah (xiv. 35) near Ayalon, and Ahiah, the 

* See our " Defense of Judaism," Psalm II., p. 109. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 53 

grandson of Eli, was there with the ark of the covenant and 
did not censure it. The Bamah at Gibeon, with the Mosaic 
tabernacle and altar, was there yet in the time of David. 
Zadok was chief priest there, Haiman and Jeduthum were 
the chief Levites, although the ark was in Zion (1 Chronicles 
xvi. 37, also xxi. and xxix.), and was there yet in the time of 
Solomon (1 Kings iii. 4 e. s.) and was called the great Bamah. 
No later prophetical writer (see 1 Kings iii. 2) would have 
allowed the building of altars and Bamoth to pass without 
some censuring or explanatory notice. We stand here evi- 
dently upon historical ground in the lifetime of Samuel. 

16. The objections to this theory are (1) from 1 Samuel 
ii. 10 and 35 ; in both cases it is maintained the Messiah- 
King is mentioned, which points to a time after Samuel and 
to another author. In both cases, however, the passages 
can be taken out of their respective places without changing 
either the sense or the meter,* and may well have been 
added by Nathan, for the same reason as the appendix was 
added to Judges, to suggest that the theocratic-democratic 
Samuel prophesied the coming change from the republic to 
the monarchy ; or as verse 10 occurs in the hymn of Hannah, 
and verse 35 in the prophecy of the Man of God to Eli, and 
not by Samuel, it may well be that this coming change was 
indeed predicted by various intelligent people, and was 
delayed only by the successful administration of Samuel. 
(2)1 Samuel ix. 9 may certainly have been written by Sam- 
uel himself : 

" Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, 
thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer ; for he that 
is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer." 

In the same chapter Samuel is called "Man of God," 
"Seer" and "Prophet." It appears, therefore, that the 

*In the poem of Hannah the words "0^37 T1J? 1*T1 disturb the 
meter, and ln^tt may refer to the high priest, who was the anointed 
one. The three words referring to the king are evidently a later 
addition. In the message of the Ish Elohim, verse 35, read "'IB? *]f>nl 
TPBtt " He (the Cohen) shall walk before me my Messiah all the 
days." 



54 The Former Prophets. 

" Seer " was still in usage, in common parlance, while the 
" Prophet " was no less the official name of the " Man of 
God," at the time when Samuel wrote, which was also the 
case beforetime ; and this explanation is given to show why 
Saul and his companions, as also the maidens, met in the city, 
persistently called the prophet seer, the latter word being 
yet in popular use, while the term prophet was the correct 
expression. The populace looked upon the Man of God as 
being a seer or soothsayer, while in fact he was the Nabi, 
the inspired orator. 

(3) First Samuel xxvii. 7 .: "And Achish gave him (David), 
Ziklag ; therefore Ziklag belonged to the Kings of Judah 
unto this day." According to Joshua xix. 5, 31, there were 
two Ziklags, one belonging to Simeon (1 Chronicles iv. 30), 
and one to Judah. The former was captured by the Philis- 
tines and given to David by Achish, and remained crown 
domain to the kings of Judah, the first of which was David. 
Before he was made King of all Israel, it could have well 
been said, that Ziklag was crown domain of the Kings of 
Judah to this day. But if this be taken as one of the ex- 
planatory notes, the like of which were added to the histori- 
cal accounts by some later writer, being in all cases explana- 
tory notes only, they can not be taken as criteria of the age 
of the text itself. As an instance of this kind may be 
quoted (Joshua xix. 47), which could not have been written 
in the time of Joshua, and yet it occurs in the topographi- 
cal portion of Joshua, the authenticity of which none could 
doubt, especially as it closes thus : " These are the inherit- 
ances which Eleazar, the priest, and Joshua, the son of Nun, 
and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of 
Israel, divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before the 
Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So 
they made an end of dividing the country." None of these 
explanatory or marginal notes could have been written after 
the fall of Samaria in 720 B. C, and the one regarding Zik- 
lag may have been written at any time after the death of 
Solomon ; hence they give no support to radical criticism 
anyhow. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 55 

17. The Book of Kings, as it is now before us, consists of 
22 and 25 chapters (modern division), 35 Sedarim (ancient 
division), 1,534 verses, the middle of which is 1 Kings xxii. 6. 
The contents of this book are : 

Chapter i. to n. 11. The last days and last will of David. 

Chapter n. 12 to v. 32. The earlier part of Solomon's 
reign. 

Chapter vi. to ix. Building and dedication of the Tem- 
ple ; the king's house and the other buildings and cities. 

Chapters x. and xi. The latter part of Solomon's reign. 

Chapter xn. Division of the kingdom in Judah and 
Israel ; Rehabeam and Jeroboam. 

Chapter xin. The prophet at Beth El, his mission and 
death. 

Chapter xiv. to 2 Kings xvii. 6 is an abstract of synchro- 
nistic history of the two kingdoms, their kings and prophets. 

Chapter xvti. 7 to 41. A review of the past. The estab- 
lishment of the foreign nations in the country of Israel and 
their conversion. 

Chapter xvni. to xxv. An abstract of the history of 
Judah, and the destruction of Jerusalem, with a later addi- 
tion of four verses on the liberation of King Jehoiachin from 
prison. 

18. Kings consists of four sections written at different 
times, viz. : (1) The first three chapters are from the book 
of the prophet Xathan. (2) The history of King Solomon, 
up to chapter xi., including the building of the Temple, is 
from " Dibrei Shelomoh " (1 Kings xi. 41),* which may have 
been written by one of the two prophets named in Chron- 
icles (2 Chronicles ix. 29). (3) From 1 Kings xi. to 2 Kings 
xvii. is the work of one synoptic ; and (4) from chapter 
xviii. to the end of the book is the work of another and 
later synoptic, who also connected the various sections into 

* According to the statement in 1 Kings xi. 41 : "And the rest of 
the acts of Solomon and all that he did, andhis wisdom — are they not 
written in the book of the acts of Solomon? " — the literary produc- 
tions of the wise king, hence also his Proverbs, at least up to chap- 
ter xxv., must have been contained in that book. 



56 The Former Prophets. 

one book. There exists no reasonable objection to the tradi- 
tion, that this last synoptic and compiler was the prophet 
Jeremiah. These closing chapters begin with the lengthy 
account of King Hezekiah, taken from Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix., 
after this synoptic had repeated (xviii. 9-12) what the former 
synoptic had written already (xvii. 1-6), showing distinctly 
that a new account, by a different writer, begins there, which 
is also apparent from the different phraseology of the last 
author. In his first chapter he mentions Moses three times, 
viz., the serpent which Moses had made ; the command- 
ments which God commanded Moses ; according to all 
which Moses commanded, the servant of the Lord (as in 
Joshua). While the first synoptic mentions Moses but 
twice in his entire book, and in entirely different phrases, 
viz. : " The Thorah of the Lord, the God of Israel " (2 Kings 
x. 31) ; As written in the Book of the Thorah of Moses (ibid. 
xiv. 6) as in 1 Kings ii. 3. In chapter xxi. the style of Jere- 
miah is easily discernible. In the next chapters the narra- 
tive of an eye-witness is before us, one who is well-informed 
in his people's history and literature. What he narrates 
briefly after the death of King Joshiah he records at length 
in his own book (Jeremiah xxxix. to xlii. and lii.). The 
same hand is discernible in both books. 

19. This last synoptic, however, could not possibly have 
written the section of the first, which begins with the last 
days of Solomon and closes with the fall of Samaria. It is 
not the history of Judah, it is the history of Israel and its 
prophets, which was his main object. He begins by placing 
King Solomon in the very worst light he could without doing 
violence to facts. He then justifies the secession of the tribes 
from the house of David and betrays nowhere any desire, 
except in Elijah's altar on Mt. Carmel, of reuniting them. 
He attempts sub rosa to excuse the schism introduced by 
Jeroboam by condemning the Baal worship in much stronger 
language than he censured the worship introduced by Jero- 
boam. While he with special care reports the names and 
marvelous deeds of the prophets in Israel and the sons of 
the prophets, he has little or nothing to say of cotemporary 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 57 

prophets in Judah, not even of Joel, Isaiah and his older 
cotemporaries. He omits important facts concerning Judah, 
Jerusalem, the Temple and the priesthood, narrated later by 
the author of Chronicles, so that it appears evident that he 
wrote the synchronistic history of Judah only as far as nec- 
essary for a better understanding of the history of Israel. 
This undoubtedly was the cause which prompted the author 
of Chronicles to write the history of Judah, Jerusalem, the 
Temple and priesthood without more than absolutely neces- 
sary reference to the history of Israel. Most remarkable in 
this connection is the notice that the priest who, after the 
fall of Samaria, was sent among the aliens of Samaria to 
teach them the laws and religion of the land, was one of the 
priests of Samaria, and not of Jerusalem (2 Kings xvii. 28). 
We have before us in the first synoptic an anonymous 
prophet, who, after the fall of Samaria, wrote the history of 
Israel with special reference to the synchronistic events in 
Judah. That he was a prophet is evident from the space he 
allots to the prophetical history. That he was an exact and 
truthful historian is evident now by the corroboration of 
his statements in the Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions. It is 
no less evident that he must have written prior to Jeremiah. 
According to 2 Kings xvii. 19 he must have lived in the 
time of King Menasseh, as appears also from " unto this 
day " in verses 23 and 41. The only prophet from that 
period who might have written it is Habakkuk or Nahum ; 
concluding from his prophecy, it was the latter, as shall be 
shown further on. 

The first chapters from the Book of Nathan may be dated 
about 980 B. C. ; the chapters from Dibrei Shelomoh, 960 
B. C. ; the first synoptic, 700 B. C. ; the second synoptic and 
compiler of the whole book, 580 B. C, with the last verses 
added by one of the last prophets. 

20. In these four books — Joshua, Judges, Samuel and 
Kings — we have before us a complete and chronologically cor- 
rect history of the ancient Israel from their coming into the 
land of Canaan to the very day of their exile to Assyria and 
then to Babylon, all written by prophets for the instruction. 



58 The Former Prophets. 

of the people, with the outspoken object in view, to prove, 
by authentic history, that Israel's salvation is in God, his 
covenants, his law, and all national misery is divine retribu- 
tion for rebellious conduct. As soon as these facts were 
known, these books became canons ; therefore they were 
called Former Prophets. It has never been proved that any 
of these books, or any portion thereof, was ever re-written 
according to Deuteronomy or any other literature, nor could 
it be proved. The style, phraseology and tendency of the 
various portions of this literature are so entirely different 
from one another ; the irregularities and unevenness in the 
language in various portions of the books also have been so 
conscientiously preserved, that evidently no corrector's or 
reviser's hand ever touched them. If such an attempt had 
ever been made to remodel them after the so-called Jahvis- 
tic or Deuteromic legislation, the Book of Judges and por- 
tions of the Book of Kings must certainly have been elimi- 
nated or re-written first. All alleged facts, data and names 
of persons and places noted in these books, whenever com- 
pared with other historical material having any bearing 
upon them, are corroborated and confirmed. Opposite such 
sources all a priori speculations underlying the construction 
or reconstruction of Israelitish history, are certainly illegiti- 
mate and unreliable. Hitherto all critics failed in disquali- 
fying these historical sources. As these sources establish 
the facts narrated in the Pentateuch and its Mosaic origin, 
.all a priori speculations, basing upon assumptions and 
hypotheses, are null and void. Indeed, the radical critics 
never attempted to invalidate these historical sources by in- 
ternal evidence or by comparison with cotemporary events, 
they having started out with the hypothesis that there was 
no law of Moses prior to Ezra or King Joshiah, sought 
means to disqualify these historical books, because they 
undoubtedly testify to the existence of the Mosaic law prior 
to Joshua. In the face of this historical testimony, however, 
all hypotheses and speculations fall to the ground, and with 
them the whole artificial structure of radical criticism. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE LATER PROPHETS. 

THE second part of the second Canon consists of the four 
prophetical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and twelve 
Minor Prophets. The names of the authors are given in 
each of the fifteen books, and in some of them the respective 
names are mentioned more than once ; as, for instance, in 
Isaiah three times, twice in Ezekiel, thirteen times in Jere- 
miah, seventeen times in Jonah, three times in Zechariah, 
nine times in Haggai, twice in Hosea and Amos, and once 
at least in eveiy other book. Some of those prophets are 
mentioned in other books of the Bible, as Isaiah in 2 Kings, 
Michah in Jeremiah xxvi., Jonah in 2 Kings xiv., Obadiah in 
1 ICings xviii., Haggai and Zechariah twice in Ezra. Only 
in parts of Isaiah, Jonah and Zechariah is the authorship 
questionable ; in regard to all the other prophets it is gen- 
erally admitted that they are the authors of the books bear- 
ing their names, the exceptions to be noticed below, after we 
have ascertained the dates of those prophets. 

2. It is necessary to review the literary monuments of 
these prophets in chronological order, as the knowledge of 
the emergencies and vicissitudes of every age furnish the 
key to a proper understanding of its literature. It is also 
of special interest and importance to know that a regular 
and uninterrupted succession of prophets is recorded in the 
sacred books. This establishes two facts : (a) the uninter- 
rupted current of tradition in Israel, which is the main fort 
and support of its literary material ; and (b) the continuous 
presence in all ages of history, of a prominent and numer- 
ous class of purely Jahvistic-theocratic worshipers and 
patriots as the main body of the nation, among whom the 
semi-paganized elements, of more or less numerical strength 



60 The Later Prophets. 

at different times, were the demoralized exceptions in the 
normal condition of the nation. 

Two facts must be borne in mind: (a) The prophets of 
Jehovah were at no time isolated individuals of a visionary 
characterr, or teachers of religion and guardians of morality 
exclusively ; they were the representatives and spokesmen 
of the party of theocratic patriots, statesmen and advocates 
of human rights, the covenant and the law no less than stern 
teachers of . righteousness, (b) They appear in Scriptures 
under different names, as Nabi, Chozeh, Ro'eh, Ish Elohim, 
Malach Elohim, also, Malach Jehovah* These different 
names may designate different ranks among those inspired 
men, whose common title was Nabi, "spokesman" (Exodus 
iv. 14; vii. 1). 

According to the traditions recorded in the Talmud there 
was an uninterrupted succession of prophets from Adam to 
Abraham. Prominent among them were Seth, Enoch, Me- 
thuselah (who was the head of an academy ^^ *IBH"TD 
Vhffl\T\0), Noah, Shem and Eber; the latter two are also 
supposed to have been at the head of an academy, from 
which Abraham and Jacob derived their knowledge, called 
"Djfl D&> *7W IBmO J"V3, and where also Rebecca went to 
inquire of the Lord (Genesis xxv. 22). In the time of the 
Patriarchs, we are informed in Genesis, there lived a con- 
siderable number of such inspired messengers of God (Gene- 
sis xix. 1 ; xxii. 11, 14 ; xxxii. 21). From Abraham to Moses 



*The term Malach signifies " messenger," either profane or 
divine ; if the latter, it is rendered " angel." It is synonymous with 
Malachah, " work," and designates a person or thing doing a cer- 
tain work, an active agent, a factor. In Scriptures persons are 
called Malach, as the high priest in Malachi ii. 7, the prophet in 
Haggai i. 13, and elsewhere. In the Talmud the grandson of 
Aaron, Phineas, is called an angel in explanation of Judges ii. 1 : 
"And an angel of Jehovah went up from Gilgal to Bochim." This 
angel was Phineas. The angel of Exodus xxiii. 20 is considered 
identical with the Nabi of Deuteronomy xviii. 15-22, by Moses 
Maimonides and others. Elements also are called angels, Psalms 
civ. 4, and the wind a word of God (ibid, cxlvii. 18). 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 61 

the succession was Isaac, Jacob and their wives, Levi, 
Kehath, Amram and Moses, which seems to be based on 
1 Samuel ii. 27, 28 and this again on Deuteronomy xxxiii. 
8-11. However, the idea underlying this tradition may be that 
of successive revelation and the conservation of knowledge 
by natural means. 

In the time of Moses many prophets are mentioned : 
Aaron, Miriam, Hur, Eldad, Medad, the seventy elders, and 
Moses expresses the wish that all the people of the Lord be 
prophets. Between Joshua and Samuel, although we pos- 
sess of that time mere fragments and episodes of history, for 
the most time a bare nomenclature of Judges, the continu- 
ous existence of the Jahvistic-theocratic patriots as the bulk 
and kernel of the people and the appearance of prophets are 
continually noticed. In Judges i. 2 appears the Malach 
Jehovah, supposed to be Phineas. Ibid., chapter iii., appears 
Othniel, son of Kenaz, of whom it is said, " And the 
spirit of Jehovah was upon him" (verse 10). Chapters iv. 
and v. the Prophetess Deborah appears in her full glory of 
monotheism and theocratic patriotism. Ibid., chapter vi., 
there appears first the Ish Nabi, " the man prophet," who 
speaks to the children of Israel ; then the Malach Jehovah, 
who speaks to Gideon ; and then Gideon himself, of whom 
it is stated repeatedly, "And God said to Gideon." After 
the death of Gideon and Abimelech follows a long time of 
peace and prosperity, always supposed to be a period of 
theocratic piety, when no prophet is heard. Right after 
that follows Jephthah, of whom it is stated, "And there was 
upon Jephthah the spirit of Jehovah " (xi. 29). Then comes 
again the Malach Jehovah to the mother of Samson (xiii. 2), 
who is called in the same chapter Ish Ho'elohim, "The man 
of God " (verse 8), and plainly Ish (verse 10) ; and also Sam- 
son, of whom it is stated three times that the spirit of Jeho- 
vah moved and incited him (xiii. 28; xiv. 6, 19). This 
brings the prophetical succession down to Samuel, and with 
it the permanent Jahvistic theocracy also. 

With Samuel begins a new period of prophecy and litera- 
ture. For a long time none was acknowledged from Dan to 



62 The Later Prophets. 

Beer Sheba, a prophet of Jehovah, as he was, no revelation 
from Jehovah was received at Shiloh as Samuel did (1 Sam- 
uel iii. 20, 21). Tradition credits him with the establish- 
ment of the school of prophets at Najoth in,Ramah, the 
disciples of which were called Bene Hannebiim, " Sons of the 
Prophets." Choruses of these prophetical disciples existed 
in the land during the latter days of Samuel (ibid. x. 9, 10), 
whose inspiring influence neither King Saul nor his messen- 
gers could resist (ibid. xix. 18-24), called there plainly a 
chorus of prophets. Their presence and influence are 
noticed in the historical records, also in the kingdom of 
Israel, down to the end of the Ahab dynasty ( 1 Kings xx. 
25; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5, 8, 15; vi. 1). This one fact proves the 
continuous prophetical succession from Samuel to Elijah 
and Elisha and Joel. The succession, however, during 
this whole period is marked in the historical records also 
by prominent names of prophets. Shortly after the death 
of Samuel we meet with David in the cave of Adullam, the 
Prophet Gad (1 Samuel xxii. 5). During the lifetime of 
Saul, and to his very end, the prophets are there, although 
no particular names are given (ibid, xxviii. 6). At the 
court of David, as King of all Israel, we meet the Prophet 
Nathan, high in authority (2 Samuel vii. and xii. ; 1 Kings 
i.) and also Gad (2 Samuel xxiv. 11-14). At the court of 
Solomon the prophetical voice was suppressed, still at the 
end of his days it resounds so much more terribly by Ahiah, 
of Shiloh (1 Kings xi. 29-39), to whom is added in 2 Chron- 
icles, Jedi the Seer (ix. 29). After the demise of Solomon, 
the prophetical voice of Shemaiah is heard (1 Kings xii. 
22-24; 2 Chronicles xi. 2-4; xii. 5), called in one account 
Ish Ha'elohim, and in the other Nabi. Shortly after we read 
of another Ish Elohim coming from Judah to Beth El 
exhorting King Jeroboam, who finds in Beth El " an old 
prophet" (2 Kings xiii.); and Jeroboam sends his wife 
stealthily to the Prophet Ahiah. This phalanx of prophets 
is succeeded in the days of King Asa by Azariah ben Oded, 
and later on by Hanani the Seer (2 Chronicles xv. 1-7 and 
xvi. 7-9). Cotemporary with Azariah was in Israel Jehu 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 63 

ben Hanani, whose message to King Bashah is noted, 2 Kings 
xvi. 1-4. With Hanani the Seer we come down to the 
thirty-fifth year of Asa. Three years later Ahab mounts the 
throne of Israel, and five to six years later Jehoshaphat 
mounts the throne of Judah. During the reign of these 
kings appears the prophetical pillar of fire, Elijah the Tish- 
bite, his disciple, Elishah, Michaiahu ben Jimlah, a host of 
true and of false prophets, and sons of the prophets. So 
also by this historical nomenclature we establish the con- 
tinuous succession of prophets and the Jahvistic theocracy 
from Samuel to Elijah, about one hundred and fifty years. 
The chain of succession is no less solid from Eliah to 
Isaiah, with whom a new period of prophetical literature 
begins. During the long reign of King Jehoshaphat the 
records show besides Elijah, Elishah and Mighaiahu, also the 
Prophets Jahaziel ben Zechariah (2 Chronicles xx. 14-17) ; 
Eliezer ben Dodovahu (ibid, verse 37) ; Jehu ben Hanani 
again (ibid. xix. 2) and Joel ben Pethuel, of whom we treat 
below. These later prophets outlived King Jehoshaphat. 
During the next following sixteen years, under the reign of 
the wicked Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah, no prophets 
speak, still those mentioned last must have outlived the 
evil years, as Elishah died thirty-eight years later (2 Kings 
xiii. 10, 14-20) ; and an exhorting letter of Elijah to King 
Jehoram is noticed in 2 Chronicles xxi. 12-15. During the 
reign of King Joash, the prophets are noticed (ibid. xxiv. 
19), and especially Zechariah ben Jehoiada, who was slain 
in the court of the temple by command of the king. Under 
the successor of Joash, his son Amaziah, we meet again 
with the Ish Ha'elohim, and later on with the Nabi, announc- 
ing divine messages of retribution to this king (2 Chronicles 
xxv. 7, 15) ; and also Jonah ben Amithai from Gath Hepher 
(2 Kings xiv. 25), who prophesied success to Jeroboam II., 
as this king mounted the throne of Israel in the fifteenth 
year of Amaziah's reign. This brings the succession down 
to the time of King Uzziah, called in 2 Kings Azariah (xiv. 
21), whose prophetical adviser was another Zechariah 
(2 Chronicles xxvi. 5) — perhaps identical with the one men- 



64 The Later Prophets. 

tioned in Isaiah viii. 2 — and in direct connection with Amos 
(i. 1), Hosea (i. 1), Isaiah (i. 1), and his younger cotempo- 
rary, Michah (i. 1 ; Jeremiah xxvi. 18). During the reign 
of Ahaz there was also in Samaria the Prophet Oded (2 
Chronicles xxviii. 9), whose remarkable influence upon the 
victorious warriors of Samaria furnishes no mean evidence 
to the effect that the Jahvistic theocracy predominated also 
in the northern kingdom notwithstanding the schism of 
Jeroboam. 

Tradition accuses Hezekiah's son and successor, Menasseh, 
of having slain the Prophet Isaiah, which says that he out- 
lived Hezekiah. This seems also to be the case with the 
Prophet Michah. It seems quite likely that Isaiah xiii. and 
xiv. was written when Menassah was a captive in Babylon 
(2 Chronicles xxxiii. 10, 11) ; and Michah vi. and vii. were 
written in the time of that king. Besides this, however, dur- 
ing the fifty-seven years of Menasseh's and Amon's reign, 
when Jerusalem and the country were so much paganized, 
the prophets were not silent. The prophets' exhorting and 
threatening voices are noticed in 2 Kings xxi. 11-15, and in 
2 Chronicles xxxiii. 10, 18, where one of them, called Hozai, 
is specially mentioned. Besides them, as we shall see below, 
Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah belong to this age. Thus 
we r are led in regular succession to the prophetess Huldah 
and the Prophet Jeremiah. In the time of this inspired and 
woe-stricken patriot there lived an abundance of true and 
false prophets, also ill-fated Uriah, who was slain by King 
Jehoiakim (Jeremiah xxvi. 20-23), besides his younger 
cotemporary, Ezekiel, in Babylonia. There also was no 
scarcity of both kinds of prophets, besides Daniel and his 
companions (Ezekiel xxii. 23-28; xxxiv.), so that among 
the colonies returning from the exile there were prophets 
even besides Haggi, Zechariah and Malachi, and they were 
there yet in considerable numbers besides the Prophetess 
Noadiah in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah vi. 7, 12, 14). 
With Haggai the millenium of prophecy closes, which begins 
with Moses, and up to him no ring is missing in the chain 
of succession. So the genius of the Hebrew people mani- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 65 

fested itself continually and continuously for one thousand 
years through those favored persons, whose knowledge, wis- 
dom, zeal and enthusiasm outshine and overtower all pro- 
ducts of their cotemporary intelligence which have reached 
us. This is certainly marvelous if not miraculous. 

3. The Book of Joel (Yo'el) ben Pethuel is before us in 
four chapters (modern division), of seventy-three verses, the 
middle of which is ii. 17. The whole of Minor Prophets, of 
which Joel's is one of the twelve books thereof, contains 
twenty-one Sedarim (ancient division), one thousand and 
fifty verses, the half of which is in Michah iii. 12, which, 
remarkable enough, is the direct prediction of the destruction 
of Jerusalem and its temple, a parallel to Amos ii. 5. This 
Joel book, undoubtedly written by himself, according to its 
purely Hebraic diction, clear and unequivocal phraseology, 
stands nearest among all the Later Prophets to the David 
and Solomon age, as it is reflected in the Davidian Psalms 
and Solomonic Proverbs. This, it seems, led some of the 
ancient rabbis to confound this prophet with Joel, the son 
of Samuel and father of Heman, the great master of music 
in the time of King David (1 Chronicles vi. 18). Later ex- 
pounders, however, understood this rabbinical expression, 
"son of Samuel," like " disciple of Samuel," or one of the 
school of Samuel. This seems to be correct, as that David- 
Solomon period of the Hebrew style originated from the 
Samuel school at Najoth. The fact that this prophet knows 
of no Assyrian, Babylonian or even Syrian invasion of 
Judah, speaks of no dispersion and restoration of the 
nation, and mentions only Edom, Ammon, Moab and the 
Philistines as enemies of Judah, points distinctly to the 
latter days of King Jehoshaphat, when, according to 2 
Chronicles xx. 1 and 10, those nationalities invaded Judah, 
and most likely after a long period of hostilities and depre- 
dations, were checked, not by the force of the Judaic arms, 
but by dissensions among themselves (verse 23), which 
forced them to flee in wild disorder at the approach of 
Jehoshaphat' s army. This was shortly after a period of 
famine in the Kingdom of Israel (2 Kings viii.) under the 



66 The Later Prophets. 

reign of Jehoram, and the Prophet Joel dwells on this sub- 
ject most emphatically — the singeing drought which destroys 
even the trees of the field, and the army of locusts which 
consumes the last blade of grass, the consequent famine and 
mourning among men and beasts, the prayers, fasts and 
repentance of sins among the cheerless people, the mercy of 
God and his final sending of the first rain and the latter rain 
together in the unusual time of the first month of the year, 
which puts an end to the misery (Joel ii. 23). All this 
points to the days of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Besides 
these points, there is yet the fact that Joel speaks with 
reverence and adoration of Zion, the holy mount, the altar, 
the sacrifices, the priesthood and their office, as none of the 
later prophets do. This state of the cult and the law could 
only have been in the time of King Jehoshaphat, whose re- 
forms were not limited to the city and temple of Jerusalem, 
but permeated the masses of the people (2 Chronicles xix. 
and xx.) ; or in the time of the high priest Jehoiadah, or 
King Hezekiah. However, the style of the book and the 
peculiarity of the promises connected with this prophetical 
oracle pointing to a time after the David-Solomonic age and 
to the lofty inspiration of the Elijah and Elishah time, as 
the conjuncture of events touched upon in the book point to 
the time of Jehoshaphat, we may safely assert that Joel was 
written in the decade prior to 880 B. C. This is also the 
opinion of the celebrated commentator, Moses Chiquitilla, 
expressed in his Perush Threi-Assar* 

4. The first verse of Joel iv. is taken as a proof that this 
chapter at least was not written before the fall of Samaria, 
or perhaps not before the fall of Jerusalem. For that verse 
reads : " For behold, in those days and in that time when 

D^mn rmrr jrac? na yvx (usually translated) i 

will bring back the captives of Judah and Jerusalem ; and I 
will assemble all the nations and I will bring them down 
into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will go into judgment 



*The Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel iv. 2) was afterward called 
Emek Barachah (2 Chronicles xx. 26). 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 67 

with them on account of my people and my inheritance, 
Israel, which they scattered among the nations, and my 
land (which they) divided." This is a mistaken notion, 
however; because 

(a) In verses 3 and 6 the prophet states plainly that the 
scattered of Israel were either kidnapped or captured per- 
sons who had been sold to the Greeks as slaves, to which 
refer Amos i. 6-13 ; Zephaniah iii. 10, and Zechariah ix. 13, 
as is also evident from 2 Kings v. 2. Besides this, it is evi- 
dent that voluntary migration of Hebrews began as early as 
the time of King Solomon. 

(6) The phrase translated, " I will bring back thy captives," 
is a quotation from Deuteronomy xxx. 3, where it is evident 
from *i "^ j"Dd in the preceding verse, and from ^^ 
"l^Dpl following this passage, as also from the Aramaic 
rendition by Jonathan, Ibn Ezra's quotation from Judah 
Chaiyug, the Sepurni and others, that it must be rendered : 
"And the Lord thy God will cause to return thy peni- 
tents." So, and not otherwise, this phrase must be under- 
stood here and wherever it occurs, as in Psalms xiv. 7 and 
liii. 7, as proved by Psalms lxxxv., where this phrase is fol- 
lowed by its definition : " Thou hast forgiven the iniquity 
of thy people, thou hast covered over all their sins." * 

(c) The Prophet Joel (iv. 4) tells who they were that 
scattered Israel among the nations and divided its lands. 
They were the men of Tyre, Zidon and Philistia, the marau- 
ders and slave-traders of those days, and not the Assyrians 
or Babylonians ; consequently, he must necessarily have 
spoken of a time prior to the very first Assyrian invasions, 
if even the phrase in (6) is understood as in the authorized 
English translation. 

There is evidently no trace in this whole book of any time 
after 880 B. C. 

5. Amos was the oldest of the four prophets that prophe- 
sied simultaneously, viz., Hosea, Amos, Isaiah and Michah. 
According to tradition Hosea was the oldest, but not accord- 

*See Mechilta, Friedmann's edition, p. 166., on 2fc?1. 



68 The Later Prophets. 

ing to the testimony of their respective books. Amos 
prophesied in the time of Jeroboam II., King of Israel, and 
Uzziah, King of Judah (Amos i. 1), and not even to the last 
years of King Jeroboam. If he had known of the victories 
and conquests of this king, the glorious achievements of his 
cotemporary, King Uzziah, in Judah, and the reviving hopes 
and prosperity of the people (2 Kings xv. ; 2 Chronicles 
xxvi.), he must have noticed them in his speeches. Hosea 
(i. 1) lived from the time of Uzziah and Jeroboam to the 
time of Hezekiah. In his prophecies the victories and con- 
quests of both kings, the wealth, prosperity and reviving 
hopes of the people, connected with unbridled luxury and 
moral corruption, are re-echoed in unmistakable language. 
On the other hand, it is evident that this prophet had no 
knowledge of the Assyrian invasion in the fourth year of 
Hezekiah, and the Shalmon Baith Arbal in x. 14 can not 
refer to Salmanaser, who reigned from 727-725 B. C, as he 
only knew of emigrants that had gone to Assyria and Egypt. 
He only knows of the hope and confidence placed in that 
power and in Egypt (Hosea xi. 5, 11; xiv. 2-10), which 
points directly to the time of King Ahaz (2 Kings xvi., and 
2 Chronicles xxviii.). His prophecies can be placed only 
between the last years of Rehoboam II., and about the mid- 
dle of the time of Ahaz. Isaiah (i. 1) was a younger cotem- 
porary of Hosea. In the heading to this book the name of 
Jeroboam is omitted. His prophecies, however, beginning 
with the death of King Uzziah (vi. 1), are chiefly from the 
time of Ahaz and Hezekiah and reach into the time of King 
Menasseh. Michah must have been a younger cotemporary 
of Isaiah, whose diction he has acquired, and with whom he 
has form and contents of prophecy and even texts in com- 
mon (Michah iv. and Isaiah ii.). He is noticed (ibid. i. 1) in 
the reigh of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah only. Still he has 
evidently not seen the fall of Samaria. His prophecies can 
be placed only between Ahaz and the sixth year of Hezekiah. 
The dates for these prophecies may be thus : 

Amos, 816 to 780 B. C. 

Hosea, 750 to 730 B. C. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 69 

Isaiah, 735 to 700 B. C., with chapter vi. from 757 B. C. 
Michah, 735 to 720 B. C. 

5. The Book of Amos, written by him, is before us in 
nine chapters (modern division), 146 verses, the middle of 
which is v. 15, remarkable for the shortness of its chapters, 
of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and but one of 27 verses. He came from 
among the herdsmen of Thekoa, a town noted for its wise 
women already in the time of King David (2 Samuel xiv.). 
When he was expelled from Beth El by the priest, he said 
of himself: " I am no prophet and no son of a prophet ; I 
am a herdsman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit ; and the 
Lord took me, as I followed the flock, and the Lord said to 
me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" (Amos vii. 14, 
15). But once he refers to the misdeeds of Judah (ii. 4, 5), 
as he does to the surrounding petty nations, and twice to the 
punishment in store for Judah (vi. 1). All his messages, 
exhortations and prophecies are directed to Israel and its 
King, Joroboam II., with the only exception of the closing 
message, in which he announces the restoration of "the 
fallen booth of David " and the restoration of Israel and its 
country after the period of devastation and desolation. 

There are system and unity in Amos' book. Chapter i.-iv. 
consists of prophetical messages, v.-ix. of prophetical 
visions, with an exalted finale. The diction is not as simple 
and clear as in Joel ; it contains some few orthographic 
irregularities, aside of which it is idiomatic and classical. 

6. The Book of Hosea (Hoshea), son of Beeri, a citizen 
of the northern kingdom — according to the traditions the 
scion of an aristocratic family — is before us in fourteen chap- 
ters (modern division), 197 verses, the middle of which is 
vii. 13. This book, like Amos', is remarkable for its short 
chapters, the longest of which is one of twenty-five and the 
shortest one of five verses. The book begins with propheti- 
cal visions (i. to iii.) symbolizing the prevailing corruption 
in the Kingdom of Israel and closing up hopefully for Israel's 
re-elevation and its return to the only God and the Davidian 
dynasty, i. e., to union with Judah. This portion was evi- 
dently written in the earlier period of the prophet's life; 



70 The Later Prophets. 

v.-xiv. consists of prophetical speeches of a stern character, 
addressed to the people, its priests and the house of its king, 
recounting in forcible language the prevailing aberrations 
and corruptions and announcing with perfect certainty the 
punishment, the particular nature of it, which will come 
over the commonwealth, and the restoration of Israel after 
the punishment shall have purified the remnant of the 
people ; i.-iii. is prosiac, vi.-xiv. is rhythmical, that kind of 
blank verse in the various forms of parallelism which makes 
Hosea in diction the immediate forerunner of Isaiah. The 
language is antique but faultless, the phraseology frequently 
elliptic and enigmatical. Amos speaks like an inspired 
herdsman, Hosea like a trained orator of the prophetical 
school, not so well used as his predecessor to the popular 
diction. 

7. The Book of Isaiah. (Yeshayah or Yeshayahu) ben 
Amoz — according to tradition the nephew by his father of 
King Amaziah — is before us in sixty-six chapters (modern 
division) thirty Sedarim (ancient division), 1,295 verses, 
the half of which is xxxiii. 21. Besides chapter vi., which is 
a prophetical- vision, consists, from i. to xxxv., of pro- 
phetical orations, and xxxvi. to xxxix. of historical nar- 
ratives, three episodes from the life of King Hezekiah. 
From xl. to lxvi. are again prophetical orations, of a different 
nature, however, than the former. The' former, except 
chapter vi., refer to the time of the Kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. 
Chapter one points clearly (verses seven and eight) to the 
invasion of Judea by Rezin and Pekah in the time of Ahaz. 
The next following four chapters can not refer to any time 
during the reign of King Jotham, who was a God-fearing 
man (2 Kings xv. 34) and an eminent ruler over a prosperous 
people (2 Chronicles xxvii.). They could refer only to the 
time of Ahaz. It seems that these five chapters were not 
considered by the compilers of equally high degree of 
prophecy with the following chapters, and were therefore 
placed before the beginning of his prophetical speeches. 
Nowhere in these chapters is it found that God said or spoke 
to Isaiah, as it occurs in the next following chapters (vi. 8; 



Prcxnaos to Holy Writ. 71 

vii. 3, 7 ; viii. 1, 5, e. s.) These first speeches are character- 
ized by the terms ptJl and fit H, " vision " and not by verbal 
communications from God, as are other chapters of the same 
book. If the amendation was not too venturous, we would 
say vi. 1 should read : " In the year of the death of Jotham." 
Isaiah was first an inspired teacher of righteousness, who 
became a prophet in the time of the invasions, wars, national 
misfortunes and catastrophes with which the eighth century 
B. C. closed. The heading Massa, which the prophet assumes 
from the thirteenth chapter, distinguishes his prophecies to 
the Gentiles from those to Israel. His references to Baby- 
lon and its downfall may have been inspired by the successful 
rebellion of Morodoch Baladon, in whose success he saw the 
rise of another powerful enemy to the smaller countries be- 
tween the Euphrates and the River of Egypt, whose final 
downfall, however, he predicted, and it was fulfilled; for 
Morodoch was slain six months after his messengers to 
Hezekiah returned, and under his son and successor Babylon 
was retaken by the Medes. The prophet, hostile to all 
reliance on foreign powers, is no less hostile to any reliance 
on the then youthful and promising power of Babylon, 
whose speedy downfall he predicts. Chapter xix. merely 
shows that the emigration from Judea and Israel into Egypt 
was as numerous then as it was into Babylonia, to escape 
from the power of Assyria, as is evident from other passages 
in Isaiah. He prophesied success to the emigrants in Egypt, 
as he did prophesy the downfall of Babylon. Egypt is near 
and Babylon very distant from Palestine. The emigrants to 
Egypt, he may have thought, might return after the fall of 
Assyria, or might always remain in close intercourse with 
their country and people, neither of which could be expected 
from those that migrated to distant Babylon. There exists 
no necessity to suppose that any chapter, or part of one, 
from i. to xxxix. was not written by the very Isaiah, son of 
Amoz, whose name is at the head of the book. The tradition 
that Hezekiah and his commission " wrote," or rather col- 
lected and compiled the book of Isaiah, might be correct if we 
presume that the said literary commission, called in Proverbs 



72 The Later Prophets. 

" the men of Hezekiah," was not dissolved at once after the 
death of that king. The absence of dates and chronological 
succession in parts of the book could only prove that the 
compilers were governed by another than the chronological 
principle, as is also the case in Psalms, the twelve Minor 
Prophets and partly also in Jeremiah. It is yet to be 
ascertained what that principle was. The Talmud admits 
mirO IJTINDI D~Tp*lD pK "there is no chronological order 
in the Thorah," without informing us of any other principle 
which guided the compilers. The other tradition of the 
Talmud, however, that King Menassah slew Isaiah, seems 
to be a mere allegory suggesting that Menassah in his 
wickedness uprooted and destroyed all the piety and patriot- 
ism which Isaiah had cultivated among his people. With 
Isaiah begins the third epoch of the Hebrew language. His 
vocabulary is the richest, his tropes most artistical, his 
diction fully rhythmical, his poesy as mystical and sublime 
as Job's or Homer's, all of which he outshines by the total 
absence of fiction in his speeches and the unparalleled 
power of formulating most sublime truths in the briefest and 
most expressive words. He, like Joel, is a prophet of Judah 
especially. Israel in his time was an enemy of Judah, and 
later on it fell with the destruction of Samaria by Salman- 
asar. Then came the invasion of Judeaby Sennacherib and 
his discomfiture before the walls of Jerusalem. These are 
the main events which engaged the mind of Isaiah, except 
where he casts the seer's glance into the distant future of 
Israel and the human family, full of hope and cheer, also 
under the most distressing vicissitudes of the present, with 
unlimited confidence in the course of Providence, the future 
of mankind, the final triumph of truth, righteousness and 
goodness among all nations. 

8. Isaiah xl. to lxvi. is the product of another prophet, or 
other prophets, that lived from near the close of the Baby- 
lonian captivity to a time after the dedication of the Second 
Temple, 540 to 510 B. C. This is partly admitted by that 
Talmudical tradition which, in the order of prophets, places 
Isaiah after Ezekiel. Besides it is maintained in Leviticus 



Pkonaos to Holy Writ. 73 

Eabba, chapter xv., that two prophecies of Bari, father of 
Hosea, were attached to the book of Isaiah ; hence it is ad- 
mitted that not all of that book is of Isaiah. Abraham Ibn 
Ezra, in his commentary to Isaiah, maintains that Jekaniah, 
or Jehoyachin, the King of Judah, who was carried captive to 
Babylon in the ninteenth year of his life (2 Kings xxiv. 8), 
and kept there imprisoned thirty-seven years, till released 
by Evil Morodoch, was the very prophet who produced those 
chapters of the Isaiah book.* This ingenious hypothesis 
accounts well for the classical Palestinean diction and many 
obscure passages in the book, but not for all. Zerubabel 
could not well have become Governor of the colony as long 
as the legitimate King of Judah lived, and part of the Deutro 
Isaiah was certainly spoken after the return from Babylon. 
The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, like chapter fifty-seven, 
seems to be the funeral oration over that very king, whose 
self-sacrifice, sufferings and final triumph are well described 
there. Anyhow, the diction shows that it is not the product 
of the same prophet as the other chapters. The same is the 
case with the closing chapter of Isaiah and several passages 
in other chapters. This forces us to admit that we do not 
know who was the author or authors of Isaiah xl. to lxvi., 
although it is evident that they were written in the time 
between Darius I. and Darius II., between 540 and 510 B. C, 
in the century prior to Ezra and the close of the prophetical 
cycle. It seems from the double tradition in the Talmud in 
placing Isaiah before Jeremiah, or after Ezekiel, that there 
were two different books of Isaiah before the compilers of 
the Canon, an older and a younger Isaiah, which at a later 
date were connected in one book, as was also the case with 
the five chapters of Lamentations, which are certainly not 
the product of one author, or with the Book of Psalms, of 
which we treat later on. 

* According to rabbinical tradition (Echah Rabba) " Lamentations" 
was written in the time of this king, and by Jeremiah; hence 
Lament, iv. 20 refers to this king, and there he is called " Messiah 
of the Lord ; " and the terms, nilkad bishchithothom, rather point to 
Jekaniah than to Joshiah, who was slain and not pnt in chains. 



74 The Later Prophets. 

The diction of Deutro Isaiah is entirely different from the 
first in the vocabulary, metaphors, vocatives, tone and ten- 
dency. He is less poetical and more rhetorical and compares 
rather to Demosthenes than to Homer. He is most vehement 
and agitating, rousing to immediate action. His tropes, 
similes, apostrophes or personifications are mostly taken 
from the celestial sphere, always grand and universal, or from 
the most tender sentiments of the human sexes, the bride, the 
mother, the daughter of Zion, the confiding child. He 
always speaks of Jacob, Israel, the servant of the Lord ; 
never of Judah, Zion, or even Jerusalem, except when he re- 
fers to its ruins and desolation. He adresses some of his 
messages to Cyrus, whom he calls the Messiah of the Lord, 
is less national and much more universal than any one 
of the older prophets. He is in style, tendency and 
fundamental thought so entirely different from Isaiah and 
the spirit of his time, that he could not possibly be indenti- 
fied with his older namesake and his age, although that great 
unknown may have borne the same name (See Ezra viii. 7) 
or assumed it. The contents of his prophecies identify 
him with the age of Zerubabel. 

9. The Prophets after Isaiah to the Babylonian captivity 
are Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah and 
the unknown author of the book of Jonah. The book of 
Nahum (Nachum) is before us in three chapters (modern 
division), seventy-four verses. The name is unique, although 
it is evidently formed of Genesis v. 29 and became the parent 
to the later name of Nehemiah and Nehuniah. In the 
Talmud the name recurs, and passages from this prophet are 
quoted without any reference to his person or to the place 
" Elkosh " added to his name. There was in Palestine a 
place called Kephar Nahum, or Capernaum. This may have 
been the Elkosh, called afterward after this prophet, but 
there exists no proof for it, no more than that it was the 
El-Kauzah near Ramah in Naphthali. He certainly was 
a citizen of the northern kingdom whose downfall he had 
witnessed. The diction of Nahum is so similar to that of 
Isaiah and Micah that he may be easily recognized as their 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 75 

disciple. He prophesied the downfall of Nineveh and 
the Assyrian Empire, therefore his book is a Massa, 
like Isaiah's prophecies to the Gentiles. His prophecy 
was announced after the fall of Samaria (Nahum i. 
4-6), and after the retreat of Sennacherib from Judah 
(ibid. ii. 1-3). This occurred in 710 B. C. Between this 
and the year 706 B. C. the Assyrian Empire was in a state 
of dissolution ; many provinces besides Media revolted; Sen- 
nacherib raged furiously among his own subjects till he was 
finally slain by his sons. This was the time when Nahum 
prophesied the destruction of Nineveh, which, however, did 
not come to pass till a century later, in the year 612 B. C, 
although the Assyrian Empire soon fell into the hands of the 
Babylonian dynasty. The prophet, still aglow with the ven- 
geance which he thought God would execute on Nineveh, 
opens his message thus : " God is jealous, and the Lord re- 
vengeth ; the Lord revengeth and is furious ; the Lord will 
take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for 
his enemies." No other prophet ever presented God in such 
a state of fury. As these expressions can not be understood 
to convey the idea of what God is or was at that time, being 
contrary to Moses in Exodus xxxiv. 6, they can only inform 
U3 of the prophet's state of mind at that particular time, 
which could have been the case but shortly after the fall of 
Samaria and the invasion and downfall of Sennacherib 
before Jerusalem, all that misery being still present to the 
prophet's mind, with the faith in God's justice firmly estab- 
lished in his soul. We may, therefore, fix the date of 
Nahum's prophecy between 710 and 705 B. C. The book has 
no proper close and appears to be the fragment of a larger 
work. 

10. Habakkuk, also consisting of but three chapters and 
fifty-six verses, is in diction the same as Nahum. He sees the 
Chaldeans approach (i. 6), speaks of their conquests, 
audacity and the slaughter of multitudes of human beings, 
like the fish and the creeping things abandoned by Provi- 
dence (i. 7-17). He prophesies, however, salvation and ref- 
ormation to Judah, knows of no destruction of Jerusalem 



76 The Later Prophets. 

and no downfall of the nation (ii. 3, 4), and predicts the 
downfall of the Chaldean invader almost in the same words 
as Isaiah prohesied the fall of Babel (xxi. 5-8). Then he de- 
nounces the moral corruption and the idolatry in the highest 
places of Jehuda's government (ii. 9-20). He refers to the 
crushing defeat of Sennacherib, his miserable end and the 
salvation of Hezekiah (iii. 12-14) as an encouraging pre- 
cedent of God's help in the time of distressing need, and 
closes up his inspired message with joyous hope and un- 
shaken trust in Providence. It is evident, therefore, that 
Habakkuk did not refer to the last invasion under 
Nebuchadnezzar, but to an invasion prior to this, one which 
did not result in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Judah. 
This could be either in the time of King Jehoiakin (2 Kings 
xxiv.), in the fourth year of his reign, or in the time of 
Manassah, in the year 677 B. C, when Esarhaddon, the 
Asnapper of the Ezra book (Ezra iv. 10), being king of both 
Assyria and Babylonia, invaded Palestine, placed foreign 
colonies in Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 24), defeated the army of 
Manassah and sent him in chains a captive to Babel. The 
latter date is most likely. For Habakkuk speaks distinctly 
of a prevailing idolatry in Judah (ii. 19), which certainly 
had no existence in the land after King Joshiah's thorough 
reforms, so that both Kings and Chronicles denounce the 
successors of Joshiah as wicked kings, but not as idolators, 
nor does the prophet Jeremiah speak of any prevailing idol- 
atry at any time after the Joshiah reformation. The visions 
of Ezekiel refer to the time of Manassah and Amon. It is 
safe, therefore, to place the prophecy of Habakkuk between 
680 and 677 B. C. 

11. Zephaniah, whose book consists also of three chap- 
ters, fifty-three verses, informs us (i. 1) that he prophesied 
in the time of King Joshiah, after the destruction of Nineveh 
in 612 B. C. (ii. 13-15). Idolatry had disappeared from 
the public places, only the " remains " thereof among the 
higher aristocracy, including the princes and the king's sons, 
were left. The ex-priests of Baal are mentioned by them 
with equal reverence with the Kohanim, the priests of the 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 77" 

temple. " Upon the roofs " of their private houses only they 
bow down to the host of heaven, and in their private parlance 
they swear by the name of God and their chief idol. They 
are the class that deserted God, or that never sought to know 
him or inquire of him (Zephaniah i. 4-8) ; or the class 
that did not believe in the prophets and would not inquire 
of them. The principal persons accused of wickedness and 
corruption are the Saarim, "princes, 7 ' and the sons of the 
king, " that leap on the threshold," are the frequent visitors 
in the royal palace and " fill their master's house with violence 
and deceit." The master's house in this case is evidently 
the king's palace, as the term master in the Hebrew is in the 
plural number (as in Genesis xlii. 30). All this points to 
the last days of King Joshiah, as is evident from the youth 
of his immediate successors as well as by a careful compar- 
ison of 2 Kings xxiii. 26-28 ; 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 27, to 
Josephus' Antiquities X. v. 1, and Talmud Shabbath 40 and 
Thanith 22, which shows that the king in the last years of 
his government was not as pious a ruler as in former years. 
Zephaniah gives as the cause of this change the princes and 
the sons of the king. The last year of Joshiah being 610 
B. C, it is evident that Zephaniah prophesied and wrote 612 
to 610 B. C. He was a senior cotemporary of Jeremiah. 

12. Obadiah, of whom we possess one message of twenty- 
one verses against Edom, is identified in the Talmud with 
the Obadiah in the time of Ahab (1 Kings xviii. 3),* Abra- 
ham Ibn Ezra raises objections to this identity, and places 
this Obadiah in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, which is sup- 
ported by internal evidence. For the diction of Obadiah is 
not the poetic, artistical style of Isaiah ; it is in meter and 
metaphor much more like Jeremiah. The whole speech 
prophesies the downfall of Edom and the final triumph of 
Mount Zion.f It is no longer Zion in its glory and its 

* He may be identical with the Levite Obadiah from the fourth 
year of Joshiah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12). 

+See also Lamentations iv. 21, 22, which seems to be the text to 
Obadiah's speech. 



78 The Later Prophets. 

power — it is Mount Zion, which " will be holy " when " the 
house of Jacob shall again possess their possession" (verse 
17). Edom is still powerful and prosperous (verses 3 and 
4), it possesses yet its rock-bound capital (verse 3), has yet 
its savants, sages and heroes (verses 8 and 9). Evil is pre- 
dicted to the dominion of Esau : " For thy violence against 
thy brother Jacob, shame shall cover thee and thou shalt be 
cut off forever" (verse 10). And now follows the specifica- 
tion of that violence (verses 11-14) : 

" On the day that thou stoodst on the other side, on the 
day that strangers carried away captive his army, and for- 
eigners entered into his gates, and cast lots over Jerusalem, 
also thou wast as any one of them. But thou shouldst not 
have looked on (pleased) at the day of thy brother, on the 
day that he was delivered up to strangers ; neither shouldst 
thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah on the day of 
their destruction ; nor shouldst thou have spoken proudly 
on the day of distress. Thou shouldst not have entered 
into the gate of my people on the day of their calamity ; 
yea, thou shouldst not have looked (pleased) on their afflic- 
tion on the day of their calamity ; nor have laid hands on 
their army on the day of their calamity. Neither shouldst 
thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that 
did escape ; neither shouldst thou have delivered up those 
of his that did remain on the day of distress." 

No such a time of extreme calamity to Jerusalem and 
Judah is recorded in history prior to the destruction of the 
city by the host of Nebuchadnezzar. It is evident, there- 
fore, that Obadiah prophesied the downfall of Edom after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, 586 B. C, although the pro- 
phecy was fulfilled four and a half centuries later under 
John Hyrcan. It is no less evident, as in the case of Nahum, 
that the prophet did speak shortly after the catastrophe, as 
he knew all the particulars of Edom's wrongs perpetrated 
on Jerusalem and Judah in that catastrophe. 

13. Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, a priest from the priestly 
city of Anatoth, in Benjamin, northwest of Jerusalem and 
within ten miles of it, was the inspired patriot of a heroic 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 79 

age. From the Tigris to the Nile all countries were in a 
state of turmoil and incessant warfare — offensive and defen- 
sive. Palestine and Phoenicia were the special objects of 
contention between the two powers, Egypt on the west and 
Babylon-Assyria on the east. Independence of any nation- 
ality between these two countries had become impossible ; 
every one of them had to submit, either to Egypt or to 
Babylonia. The land of Judah, from and after the capture 
of King Manassah, had been subject to the eastern empire, 
and remained in this state of dependency, also, after the 
restoration of Manassah, under Amon and Joshiah, with 
whose death the active hostilities of those two empires re- 
opened, and ended for Judah with the memorable catastrophe 
of Jerusalem's destruction and Judah's exile to Babylonia, 
675-586 B. C. Jeremiah's prophecies began with the thir- 
teenth year of the reign of Joshiah, which was 631 or 630 
B. C. ; the year can not be exactly fixed. The first reforms 
of Joshiah occurred (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 3) in the twelfth 
year of that king's reign, hence, simultaneously with Jere- 
miah's first prophetical speeches. Joshiah's first reforms 
could naturally extend only to Jerusalem, and culminated 
in the renovation of the temple, and the rinding of the origi- 
nal copy of the Book of the Covenant (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 
14) ; and then his second reforms, in the eighteenth year of 
his reign, or shortly thereafter, extended to the country and 
the territory of the Kingdom of Israel. This invasion of 
the northern kingdom could certainly not have occurred as 
long as Assyria was in its full power ; hence it must be 
placed after the fifteenth year of Joshiah's reign, when 
Nabopolassar rebelled against the King of Assyria, and 
made himself King of Babylon. This again culminated in 
his third reform, the great Passover celebration, in which it 
is maintained (2 Kings xxiii. 21 ; 2 Chronicles xxxv. 18) 
all Judah, the remaining multitude of Israel and the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem took part. Jeremiah's name is not men- 
tioned in connection with any of these reforms, nor does he 
anywhere identify himself with them. When the Book of the 
Covenant was found in the temple the king inquired of the 



80 The Later Prophets. 

prophetess Huldah, and not of Jeremiah, whether the punish- 
ment predicted in it would be inflicted on Judah; hence 
Jeremiah's authority was not yet established. He must 
have preached for some time in Anatoth (Jeremiah xi. 21, 
22; xii. 5, 6) before he went to Jerusalem (ibid. ii. 2), and 
his first speech there (ii. 2 to iii. 5) was evidently made after 
the death of Joshiah (ii. 17, 36). It appears, therefore, cer- 
tain that the reform of King Joshiah and the discovery of 
the original Book of the Covenant fired the soul of that 
young priest to prophetical inspiration, and he preached and 
prophesied entirely in the spirit of that reformation and on 
the principles of that Book of the Covenant, without being 
an acknowledged authority among the numerous true and 
false prophets of those days.* His authority grew after the 
death of Joshiah, when the reaction set in, and corruption 
and demoralization increased with the growing power of the 
foreign potentate, as patriotism, self-reliance and faith in 
Providence decreased. It seems he was not generally ac- 
knowledged as a true prophet prior to the catastrophe, when 
his predictions had been so terribly fulfilled. Then, and 
perhaps as late as 550 B. C. (Jere. Iii. 32), his manuscripts 
were collected and connected in a Book of Jeremiah. The 
compiler may have been Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, or 
the liberated King of Judah himself. His prophecies became 
then the pillar of hope to the exiled (2 Chronicles xxxvi. 
21, 22; Daniel ix. 2), and roused that hopeful and joyful 
enthusiasm which re-echoes in the Deutro-Isaiah, Haggai, 
Zachariah, Zerubabel and Joshiah, the high priest. 

14. The Book of Jeremiah is before us in fifty-two chap- 
ters (modern division), thirty-one Sedarim (ancient divis- 

*The supposition that then and there Deuteronomy was forged 
upon the name of Moses is as contrary to the historical sources, 
which plainly and repeatedly state, that it was the " Book of the 
Covenant" which was found in the sanctuary, as is that other 
hypothesis which gives to Jeremiah the authorship of Deuter- 
onomy ; both are the illegitimate products of those who were mis- 
guided by the prior hypothesis, that Moses could not be the author 
of the Pentateuch. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 81 

ion), 1,365 verses, the middle of which is xxviii. 11. The 
fifty-first chapter closes : " Till here are the words of Jere- 
miah," while the fifty-second chapter is an addendum, part 
of which is taken literally from the closing chapters of 
Kings, omitting the story of Gedaliah, which is narrated at 
length in Jeremiah xli. That it was taken from Kings, and 
not vice versa, is proved by the corrections in Jeremiah. But 
the closing passage concerning the release of King Jehoiachin 
from prison was copied from Jeremiah into Kings. This 
seems to confirm the hypothesis that this King was the 
compiler of the Jeremiah prophecies. The body of the book 
contains three elements, viz., admonitions, predictions and 
cotemporary history. The admonitions are all of the same 
character, the people, priests, princes and kings are forcibly 
reminded to submit to the Thorah, the law of God, and be 
saved in the coming catastrophe, or disobey and perish 
under the coming wrath. The prophet is fully convinced 
that the punishment is sure to come. His predictions are 
no less categoric. He spoke invariably the same : " You 
submit to the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar and save your 
lives, country, city and temple from destruction, or you 
resist and lose everything. Babel will fall and Babylonia 
will be dissolved. Egypt also will perish ; so will Phiiistia, 
Tyre and Zidon, Moab, Ammon, Edom and Damascus. 
Then Judah and Israel may regain their independence, 
former splendor and power, if you only hold fast to your 
God and his Thorah, adhere to your cause and the divine 
covenant. But even if you remain rebellious and lose every- 
thing, the nation and its cause will not perish. After seventy 
years your offspring will return to. their country and con- 
tinue the preservation of your nationality and your cause 
as better men and women than their rebellious ancestors." 
In the midst of all distress and calamity Jeremiah ceased 
not to predict a gracious future for coming generations in 
Israel, which will outlive all its mighty adversaries ; and in 
all that, in the threatened punishment and promising future, 
Jeremiah only enlarged on the predictions of Moses (Deut. 
xxviii. to xxxii. and Leviticus xxvi.), whose words, phrases, 



82 The Later Prophets. 

doctrines and precepts fall continually from the lips of 
Jeremiah. His diction and rhythm are original, having 
nothing in common with the poetical sublimity, beauty and 
polish of the Isaiah period, or with the Samuel school. 
Speaking continually of facts which exist or are to come, 
and hurried by a rush of exciting events and calamitous and 
terror-striking emergencies, Jeremiah speaks evidently with- 
out bestowing any care on the form, " as God put it into his 
mouth," yet at times loftily poetical. He quotes from 
older prophets or imitates frequently more ancient phrases, 
as we shall show elsewhere. Still, in the main he speaks 
like a disciple of Moses, without, however, the brevity and 
conciseness of Moses, so that Rabbi Judan ben Simon (in 
Pesikta Rabbathi) could maintain Jeremiah was a prophet 
like Moses in admonitions, and some critics suspect him to 
be the author of Deuteronomy, although it is of an entirely 
different spirit, form, contents and diction, except perhaps 
Deuter. xxviii. ; and this is too frequently used by Ezekiel to 
be the work of Jeremiah. 

15. The most remarkable imitation occurs in Jeremiah 
xlix. 7-22, where the prophecy of Obadiah is transcribed 
and enlarged upon. It can not well be maintained that Oba- 
diah imitated Jeremiah, for if so, his one-chapter speech 
would certainly not have been accepted among the minor 
prophets compiled some time after the Jeremiah book. Be- 
sides, all the prophecies to the Gentiles from Jeremiah xlvi. 
to 1. are of a different cast. They are more compact, betray 
less excitement, and are full of consolation to Israel and 
Judah. However, being in tone and spirit of the same cast 
with his other speeches, it proves only that they were writ- 
ten after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the prophet's re- 
turn from Egypt, when his mind was calmer than it was dur- 
ing the war, and, all being lost, he had retired from public 
life (except chapter li., which he wrote in the fourth year of 
Zedekiah), to write his last prophecies in some retired and 
isolated spot, far away from the turmoils of life. Passages 
like chapter x., supposed to be imitations of Deutro-Isaiah, 
are certainly original with Jeremiah and imitated by the 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 83 

Deutro-Isaiah, who succeeded him in time. The variations 
in the Greek translation embodied in the Septuagint prove 
nothing against the authenticity of the Massoretic text, as 
the Septuagint was several times remanipulated, and could 
also be accounted for by the presumption that the translator 
had before him the defective copy of an unknown and unau- 
thorized compiler. It is, therefore, safe to maintain that 
Jeremiah wrote and spoke between 630 and 580 B. C, and 
his productions were compiled 550 B. C. in one volume, as 
is now before us in the Book of Jeremiah. It is evident 
from the numerous Massoretic annotations in this book, 
more than in any other, that nothing was changed in the 
original manuscripts by the compiler. The exactness and 
truth, also, of the contemporary history recorded in the 
book testify to its authenticity. 

16.i The Book of Jonah is before us in four chapters (mod- 
ern division), forty-eight verses. Jonah (Yonah), son of 
Amithai, is the name of a prophet from Gath-Hepher, in 
Zebulon, who flourished in the earlier days of Jeroboam II., 
812 B. C, and prophesied the victories which this king 
achieved (2 Kings xiv. 25). It is possible enough that this 
prophet went on a divine mission from' Samaria to Nineveh, 
preached there repentance and moved the heathen (and 
Hebrew ?) population of that ancient capital to penance and 
reformation, and that this story was preserved traditionally 
in Israel, especially because at home the prophet did not 
succeed in the same kind of work. But it is not probable 
that the same prophet was the author of the Book of Jonah. 
It contains terms and phrases of much later Hebrew. The 
prayer of Jonah in chapter ii. is mostly an imitation of other 
Bible passages.* The idea of a prophet attempting to 
escape from before God is taken from Jeremiah, who assid- 
uously attempted not to prophesy and to speak in the name 
of God, and did not succeed (Jeremiah xx. 7-18) ; the idea 
is allegorized in Jonah, and the irresistible force in the soul 

*The whale is not mentioned in the original, it is a " large fish," 
of which the Septuagint and Josephus made a whale. 



84 The Later Prophets. 

of Jeremiah, compelling him to speak, is represented here 
by the storm and the fish which swallows Jonah. Also the 
idea that God would forgive the penitent sinners, the pun- 
ishment would not overtake them, and the prophet would 
appear a false prophet, is outlined in Jeremiah (xxviii. 5-9). 
So is Jonah iv. 3, 8 almost literally from Jeremiah, so that 
there can be hardly any doubt left that the Book of Jonah 
was written after Jeremiah. Other ideas contained in this 
book point distinctly to the cosmopolitan time which had 
its start^in the exile. God cares also for the sinful heathens, 
and extends his mercy to them. God's mercy extends even 
to the cattle of Nineveh. God forgives the penitent without 
any sacrifices or intercession. The heathens are even better 
than the Israelites who would not listen to the admonitions 
of their prophets. The office of the prophet is not to work 
miracles and to prophesy ; it is to announce the will of God 
to his erring children. Conceptions like these will fit only 
into that century, and are worthy of the prophet in whatever 
form he expressed them — in legend, allegory, myth or fable. 
The book could not have been written much later, as it was 
accepted in the Propheticel canon, and its author constantly 
uses the tetragrammaton. It was evidently not written after 
the close of the prophetical era. It is safe, therefore, to 
maintain that the Book of Jonah was written about 540 B. C. 
Its pseudonymous author elaborating the Jonah tradi- 
tion, must have been one of the Hebrew exiles in Assyria, as 
his diction is foreign, he knows more of Nineveh than of Pal- 
estine, and calls himself an Ibri, a Hebrew, as none either 
in Judah or in Israel called himself. It is evident from Eze- 
kiel that in his time a great revival of faith took place 
among the Assyrian exiles. It was to them that Jonah 
preached this divine message on the efficacy of repentance, 
as a continuation of Ezekiel's message to them. (See Eze- 
kiel xx.) 

17. Ezekiel (Yechezkel), the son of Busi, a priest dwelling 
in a colony of the exiles on the Chebar River, east of the 
Euphrates, then belonging to the land of the Chaldeans, was 
the only prophet of the period of the Babylonian exile. His 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 85 

prophecies were collected and compiled in one book by the 
Men of the Great Synod, a century or longer after his demise. 
For this Synod was instituted by Ezra about 445 B. C, con- 
tinued its existence to at least 300 B. C, as Simeon the Just, 
who died 292 B. C, was its last President. If Ezekiel was 
thirty years old in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin's cap- 
tivity (Ezekiel i. 1, 2), 592 B. C. and lived forty years there- 
after, he must have died 552 B. C. These dates, however, 
are uncertain. The prophet may have had this vision on 
Chebar River after he had lived thirty years in that colony, 
may have prophesied prior to that in the twenty-seventh year 
of his stay among the exiles ( Ezekiel xxix. 17), and may have 
been well advanced in age when he had that great vision of 
the throne of God, by which he considered himself initiated 
in the highest prophetical degree. The fourteenth year after 
the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezekiel xi. 1) may have been 
his last prophecy, and mark, also, the last year of his life, 572 
B. C. This date seems to be correct, for he says nothing of 
the liberation of King Jehoiachin, which occurred about 561 
B. C, and produced a thorough change in the condition of 
the exiles, one which the patriotic prophet could not possibly 
leave unnoticed. He speaks of no king of Babylon besides 
Nebuchadnezzar, refers to nothing which transpired in the 
last decade of this king's reign, and sees his own people only 
in a state of despair, as they must have been in the decades 
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, if 
we presume that Ezekiel lived his threescore and ten, it is 
safe to place him from 640 to 572 B. C. He migrated, per- 
haps voluntarily, to the Chebar River in the eighteenth year 
of King Joshiah, and in the thirtieth year of his abode 
there, which is in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin's captiv- 
ity (see Rashi to Ezekiel i. 2), he began his prophetical ca- 
reer, about 592 B. C, when about forty-four years old.* 

* According to Seder Olam (Rashi to Ezekiel) the eighteenth year 
of King Joshiah was the jubilee year, therefore Ezekiel dates from 
that year. He mentions the jubilee year also in chapter xlvi. 
7, as IVnn rUB> exactly in the sense of Moses. 



86 The Later Prophets. 

18. The book of Ezekiel is before us in forty-eight chap- 
ters (modern division), twenty-nine Sedarim (ancient divis- 
ion), 1,273 verses, the middle of which is xxvi. 10. Dates 
are at the head of some chapters from the fifth to the twenty- 
fifth year of the captivity of King Jehoiakim. In diction 
and the main subjects of prophecy it is like the Book of 
Jeremiah, with some Aramisms which betray its author's 
residence in the land of the Chaldeans. The latter is also 
the case with the allegories of his visions, especially his 
descriptions of the throne of God, which, in addition to the 
original (Isaiah vi.), are reflexes of Chaldean astrological 
conceptions. He is unlike Jeremiah in his originality ; be- 
sides Moses, he imitates none. He wrote like one who knew 
no literature besides the books of Moses. He knows Noah, 
Job and Daniel as righteous men (xiv. 33, 19), the latter 
also as a wise man (xxviii. 3), but betrays no knowledge of 
a book of either Job or Daniel. He elaborates the same 
ideas (ii. and iii. 8-10) with Jeremiah i. on entering the 
prophetical office and his unwillingness to prophesy (iii. 
11-15) like Jeremiah, but shows no further acquaintance 
with his older cotemporary's literary productions. He refers 
(vi. 5) to King Joshiah's work at the altar of Beth-El, from 
memory, it appears. Except his last prophecy on Seir (xxxv. ), 
which sounds like Jeremiah's and Obadiah's in the main, he 
evinces no knowledge of any literature except the books of 
Moses. He not only reproduces largely terms, phrases and 
sentences peculiar to Moses, but amplifies laws of Moses and 
expounds them at length in the very phraseology of Moses. 
So, for instance, iii. 16-21, he advances the idea of the 
Zopheh's, or prophet's responsibility for the well-being of the 
congregation, which is an amplification of Deuteronomy 
xiii. 2-6 and xviii. 15-22. Again, Ezekiel xiv. and xviii. are 
amplifications of Deuteronomy xxiv. 16, in connection with 
Exodus xxxiv. 5-7 and Numbers xiv. 19-20. Again, Ezekiel 
xxxvi. is a reproduction of the above chapters, and all four 
of them are completely in the phraseology of Moses. It 
appears that the prophet, far away from his home, had no 
other literature of Israel at his command. His thorough 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 87 

knowledge, however, of the nations from Ethiopia to the 
Caspian Sea and the Hindus River, their history, political 
conditions, industries, commerce and products of the soil 
(for instance, chapters xxvii. and xxviii.) is plain evidence 
of his vast information and access to the world's literature, 
such as no other writer of those days does show, not even 
Herodotus and Xenophon in the century after Ezekiel. 
Judging Ezekiel from the poetical standpoint his affluence 
of words and metaphors is admirable. His allegories and 
symbols are frequently most sublime, although in several 
instances grotesque and even coarse, as in chapter iv. He 
speaks, more than any other of the prophets, like a teacher 
rather than an orator, so that it seems that teaching was his 
profession in the colony. Judging him from the ethical and 
national standpoint, Ezekiel occupies the highest position 
among the great prophets. Among a people inclined to 
Paganism, with causes then deemed sufficient to doubt their 
God's power and willingness to save them, and, stunned by the 
nation's downfall, given to despair, ready to yield to the 
victor's faith and wisdom, Ezekiel rises like a pillar of fire 
on a dark night, a mighty and successful pleader of Israel's 
imperishable cause and God's inviolable promises, a terror 
to the wicked and wickedness, a reviving sunshine and 
refreshing shower to the moral sentiments, the national faith 
and hope, and he did resurrect the dead in the valley of 
Dura. In that chapter (xxxvii.) he merely describes his 
mission and his work. 

19. The book of Ezekiel contains three distinct parts : 
(1) from chapters i. to xxiv. ; (2) chapters xxv. to xxxix. ; 
and (3) from chapters xxxix. to xlviii. In the first part he 
prophesies, in substance the same as Jeremiah, the approach- 
ing end of the kingdom of Judah either b} r submission to 
Nebuchadnezzar or by utter destruction and exile, always 
maintaining that the end is not the final end, but is to lead 
to a higher state of national life and prosperity after the 
sins shall be expiated by the national sufferings ; also always 
maintaining that the righteous and the penitent shall not 
perish in the catastrophe. In the second part he is the 



88 The Later Prophets. 

prophet of consolation ; the trumpet of resurrection, the 
comforter and harbinger of glad tidings to his people, the 
pleader of Israel and the advocate of God's tender mercies. 
All his messages to the Gentiles, including the " Gog " pro- 
phecies in chapters thirty-eight and thirty-nine, have the 
same object in view as with Jeremiah. They are to announce 
that all those nations and governments, however mighty and 
vigorous, will perish, and Israel in consequence of the cove- 
nant will outlive them ; that the name of God be proclaimed 
and hallowed by them.* A special feature of Ezekiel's work 
is his teaching among the exiled Israelites from the Northern 
kingdom. It seems that the Thel Abib colony was com- 
posed of the older Assyrian exiles from the Kingdom of 
Israel and the later emigrants from the Kingdom of Judah. 
The elders of Israel, like the elders of Judah, come to the 
prophet to seek instruction (Ezekiel xiii. 24; xx. 1). He 
announces to them the divine oracles, pleads their cause, 
prophesies salvation to them, predicts their reunion with 
Judah, sees the land of Israel repopulated and prosperous 
(chapter thirty-six) and knows of no distinction any longer 
between the two kingdoms (chapter thirty-seven). In the 
third part, Ezekiel lays down a plan for a new temple, 
service, city and geographical division of the whole land of 
Palestine, for the twelve tribes, retaining the sacrificial polity 
and Levitical priesthood of Moses with some minor changes, 
and changing entirely the old division of the land.f This 
document and, it appears, the whole of Ezekiel was un- 
known to Zerubabel, and it appears also to Ezra, as none of 
those provisions were adopted in the second temple and 
commonwealth. Like other prophets, Ezekiel's authority 

*The " Gog " prophecy is in substance no more than an amplifica- 
tion of Jeremiah xxx. 10, 11, whether he did or did not think of the 
Scythians. 

t It did not appear to Ezekiel or to the other prophets that the 
Mosaic provisions for the sacrificial polity were originally intended 
to be unalterable, or else he could not have proposed changes as 
he did. 



Proxaos to Holy Writ. 89 

during his lifetime was but local ; he was one among many 
cotemporary prophets (Ezekiel xiii. and xx. 25). It was 
difficult to distinguish the true from the false prophet. In 
his locality, it appears from the general tone of his speeches, 
and especially from xii. 27 and xxi. 5, he met with many 
unbelievers. Besides, Ezekiel never left the colony, and 
this was too far from Babel to be known there. His name 
is not mentioned in any other book besides his own. So it 
appears certain that the prophecies of Ezekiel were not 
generally known before the Men of the Great Synod, per- 
haps after the death of Ezra and Nehemiah, collected and 
compiled the manuscripts in the present book. Centuries 
later, it is reported in the Talmud (Shabbath 136), the 
learned men wanted to take the Book of Ezekiel out of the 
Canon, " Because his words contradict the words of the 
Thorah." * This contradiction can refer to Ezekiel's third 
part only, as in all his other prophecies he re-echoes Moses, 
and often literally. Ezekiel's temple, city and division of 
the land were intended for the reunited twelve tribes, which 
did not came to pass prior to the victories of Alexander 
the Great. 

20. Three prophets of whom literary productions are extant 
appear in Israel's history after the return from the Babylon- 
ian captivity, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Their com- 
mon sepulcher on Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem, is yet 
venerated by the men of the three monotheistic religions. 
With these three hesperi closes the prophetical Canon, and 
also the code of the Twelve Minor Prophets, the fourth book 
of Later Prophets, which contains the prophecies of twelve 
prophets, divided, like Isaiah, into sixty-six chapters, one 
thousand and fifty verses. The Talmudical tradition reports 
many prophets coming back from Babylonia with Zerubabel 
and with Ezra, who were members of the Great Synod. Pro- 
phets are mentioned also in Nehemiah, together with the 



* One Hananiah ben Hezekiah saved the book and the honor of 

the prophet. 



90 The Later Prophets. 

prophetess Noadiah (vi. 7, 14)*. Besides those three and 
this prophetess, none is mentioned by name in Scriptures. 
In the historical sources Haggai and Zechariah only are 
named (Ezra v. 1). Malachi appears nowhere outside of 
his book. The Talmudical tradition, therefore, reports Mal- 
achi as an appellative, and his proper name as Mordechai, 
or Ezra (Meguillah 15), the latter being generally accepted, f 
It is maintained, therefore, that with Malachi or Ezra closes 
the prophetical millennium beginning with Moses, in round 
numbers 1450-450 B. C. This " Twelve Books," according 
to the Talmudical tradition, being written, or rather com- 
piled, in its present form by th,e Great Synod, the prophet- 
ical Canon could not have been completed before the fourth 
century B. C. 

21. The Book of Haggai (Chaggai), consisting of two 
chapters, thirty-eight verses, is dated from the sec ond year 
of Darius II., in the sixth month of that year, the three 
oracles respectively the 1st, 21st, and 24th days of that 
month, 519 B. C. He mentions the fact, that the twenty- 
fourth day of the ninth month, the same year, building on 
the temple was resumed (ii. 18). All his oracles except one 
passage are admonitions to Zerubabel and Joshua the high 
priest to resume work on the temple before permission was 
given by Darius II. One passage (ii. 11-13), addressed to 
the priests, is casuistic, and sounds like similar passages in 
Zendavesta. This may be the reason that Haggai has be- 

* Only four prophetesses are named in Scriptures, Miriam, De- 
borah, Huldah and Noadiah. Tbey belong to four periods of his- 
torj', and are intended to suggest the principle that in the highest 
spiritual sphere also woman always was the equal of man. 

iZebachim 62a it is stated from Mishnath Rabbi Eliezer ben Ja- 
cob that three prophets came up with them from Babylon, one to 
testify to the exact spot where the altar was, another to testify 
that sacrifices might be offered up before the temple was built, 
and a third one to sanction the re-writing of the Thorah in the 
Assyrian characters (as it now is). No names are given there, al- 
though it appears that the two former were Haggai and Zecha- 
riah and the latter Malachi or Ezra himself. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 91 

come so prominent in the Talmudical traditions, more so 
than his contemporaries (Yebamoth 16; Kiddushin 42). 
There can be no doubt as to the literal authenticity of this 
book, although its diction, rhythm and prophetic address 
distinguish its author not from the prophets of, the previous 
century. 

22. The Book of Zechariah (Zecharyah) is before us in 
fourteen chapters, 211 verses. He was the son of Berechiah. 
from the descendants of Eddo, the prophet. Eddo flourished 
in the time of the first Jeroboam and his son, Abiah, in the 
tenth century B. C, and could not be the grandfather of 
Zechariah in the sixth century, hence we understand that 
Eddo was the ancestor by whom his family was distin- 
guished. It was deemed necessary to add to the prophet's 
name, " Son of Eddo, the prophet," because there was 
another Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Isaiah viii.), who was 
also a prophet (2 Chron. xxvi. 5) in the time of King Uzziah, 
evidently an older contemporary of Isaiah. Zechariah 
opens his prophetical career in the same year, and but three 
months later than Haggai, continues the same on the 
twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month (i. 7) and then 
gives us no other date until vii. 1, which is dated the fourth 
month of the fourth year of Darius, although chapter vii. 
was certainly written after the rebuilding of the temple, 
which occurred 515 B. C. Thus we know that his prophetical 
time was but five years, 519 to 515 B. C. The substance Of 
his oracles is the same as Haggai's, encouraging Zerubabel, 
Joshua and the people to complete the sacred structure. 
There is also a piece of casuistry in Zechariah (vii. and viii.) 
referring to the abolition of the four national fasts. Zecha- 
riah is more eloquent and poetical than his cotemporary. 
He marks the decadence of prophecy into the apocalyptic 
visions. He is frequently visited and spoken to by angels, 
sees allegoric visions which represent no truths in them- 
selves and become instructive by the explanations only. 
With him Satan appears for the first time as a figure of 
prophetical vision. The same decadence of the prophetical 
power as observable from Jeremiah to Ezekiel is observable 



92 The Later Prophets. 

also from Ezekiel to Zechariah. Haggai speaks more like 
Jeremiah; Zechariah betrays the Babylonian influence, 
while Haggai speaks like a Palestinean that had not left his 
native country — as if the former had been a disciple of 
Ezekiel and the latter of Jeremiah. If the same Zechariah 
wrote also the fourteenth chapter of this book — which is 
doubtful — then he may certainly be taken as a disciple of 
Ezekiel. For this chapter xiv. is in substance identical 
with Ezekiel's Gog prophecy (chapters xxxviii. and xxxix.) 
If one takes with this the Book of Daniel, he can clearly 
conceive that the apocalypsis, in which finally the ancient 
spirit of prophecy is submerged, is of Babylonian origin ; the 
Hebrew and the Chaldean geniuses interwoven produced 
this new phenomenon, as in later days the conflict of the 
Hebrew and the Greek geniuses produced other phenomena, 
and foreign to both. It is also well to bear in mind that — 
what is so frequently noticed in the Talmud — with these 
last prophets begins the era of casuistry. The prophet's in- 
tuitively productive mind having lost most of its buoyancy, 
comes down to discursive reasoning, as we will see especially 
in Malachi, and ends in casuistry. 

2*3. The five chapters of Zechariah from ix. to xiii. are 
certainly not the production of the post-exilic Zechariah. 
They begin in two instances with Massa (ix. and xii.), like 
Isaiah and his immediate successors, announcing divine 
oracles to the Gentiles ; and this prophet addresses his first 
Massa to Syria, and the second to Israel, then the enemies 
of Jerusalem and Judah. This points at once to the in- 
vasion by Pekah and Rezin in the time of King Ahaz. He 
speaks of no enemies besides those coming from Syria, 
Tyre, Zidon, Philistia and the Greek slave-traders (ix. 2, 5, 
6, 13), as did also Joel (see above, chapter iv. 3, c.) No 
Assyrian, no Babylonian, no Egyptian enemy, not even 
hostile Edom, Ammon and Moab, are known to the prophet, 
exactly as in the days of Joel. He speaks of the Kingdom 
of Ephraim and Joseph (ix. 10 ; x. 6) as a living reality. He 
knows no Jlebrew exiles in Assyria, except those from the 
East Jordan land and the Lebanon, and a few of them in 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 93 

Egypt, when both these countries are still in their power 
and glory (x. 10, 11). He speaks of three shepherds being 
vanquished in one month, which could refer only to Ahaz, 
Pekah and Rezin (xi. 8, 9). He describes the prophets with 
the hoary garments and " wounds between their hands " 
(xiii. 3-6), not as they did appear at any time after, 
but as they appear prior to the exile, in the days 
of Elijah and Elishah, and contemns them exactly as 
did Michah (iii. 5-7). He calls the princes Alluphei Jehudah, 
and after the captivity they were called Chorim, Seganim, 
never Alluphim, He speaks of the Crown Prince Hezekiah 
(ix. 9) as did Michah in his time (v. 1-3), and changes 
Michah's Ki attoh yigdal ad Aphsei Aretz into Umoshelo miyam 
ad yam, etc., which means the same.* Besides all this the 
diction, rhythm, phraseology and prophetical buoyancy in 
these five chapters are entirely different from the Zechariah 
style, and sound fully like the classical Isaiah time. It 
seems, therefore, evident that these five chapters belong to 
the earlier Zechariah, son of Berachiah, mentioned in Isaiah 
and Chronicles, and were attached to the second Zechariah 
by mistake, as was attached the second Isaiah to the first, 
not by the compilers of the Canon, but by later transcribers. 
24. Malachi is before us in three chapters of fifty-five 
verses. With him begins the polemic dialogue against 
skepticism, so well perfected in Job and Ecclesiastes. 
It sounds like a distant echo from the prophetical cata- 
ract. The temple is built, all its institutions are there; 



*Vehibbitu aili eth asher dakaru xii. 10 refers to to the Yosheb 
Yerusholaim in the same verse, therefore he changed the aili into 
eilav. In verse eleven the prophet speaks of the mourning over 
Hadadrimon in the valley of Megidon. This ceremony identical with 
that mentioned in Ezekiel xii . 11, the women of Jerusalem wept over 
the sungod Tammuz, and Hadadrimon being identical with Hadad, 
the sungod of the North Syrian tribes, could not possibly have been 
observed in the valley of Megido in the time of Zechariah, when all 
paganism had disappeared in Judah. It i3 distinct reference to an 
older Zechariah, when such pagan practices still could be imagined 
as existent in Judah. 



94 The Later Prophets. 

they are already old and damaged by the neglect and skep- 
ticism of the priests and corruption among the people. He 
begins with an old Massa once addressed to Israel and 
Edom (i. 1-5), which is his text, basing upon which he 
conducts his polemics against the levity and corruption of 
priest and people. 

He describes the ideal priest (ii. 4-8) and compares with 
him the low and despised priesthood of that day. He 
threatens them with the sudden approach of the master in 
his palace, whom he calls the angel or messenger of the 
covenant, and considers himself the forerunner of him who 
will purify the palace and its servants. In the thirty-second 
year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, Nehemiah returned to 
Susa, and remained there nine years. He returned to 
Jerusalem and found everything in a state of anarchy 
(Nehemiah xiii.). He enforced again the Law and the Ezra 
reforms with his own, described vividly in the closing chap- 
ter of Nehemiah. Shortly before the return of Nehemiah 
to Jerusalem Malachi must have delivered his incisive dis- 
courses. If Nehemiah came first to Jerusalem in 445 B. C, 
remained there twelve years, and then again nine years in 
Susa, he came the second time to Jerusalem 424 B. C , after 
the death of Artaxerxes. Then Malachi must have spoken, 
in the years 426 and 425 B. C, the last echoes from the 
prophetical lyre. The closing verses of this book (iii. 22- 
24), it is maintained, are the solemn words of the compilers 
of the prophetical Canon, to connect all with the Thorah of 
Moses which God commanded him at Horeb for all Israel, 
and to remind the reader that zealous prophets like Elijah 
always came and always will come to bring back to God the 
hearts of the parents with the children. That is to say, the 
right man in proper time always appeared, and always will 
appear, to enforce the Thorah of Moses. This refers princi- 
pally to the regular and uninterrupted succession of 
prophets from Moses to Malachi, one thousand years and 
more of prophetical inspiration. 



CHAPTER V. 

HAGIOGRAPHY. 

THE nine (or thirteen) books of Scriptures called " Hagi- 
ography," or sacred writing, mentioned as such in 
the translator's introduction to Ben Sirah's book and in 
Josephus, are called in the Talmud plainly D*DirO writ- 
ings or scriptures, and in the later Hebrew works ^j"D 
fc^Tlp holy writings or holy scriptures, and it is maintained 
CTlpn nrO "HOW DOVO " These writings were said 
(or written) under the influence of the holy spirit.' 1 This 
is the degree inferior to the nine degrees of prophecy. In 
none of these books is it stated that God said or spoke to 
the poet or commanded him, except in. Job, and in Daniel 
which is apocalyptic, angels take the place of the voice of 
God. Psalms, Song of Songs and Lamentations are purely 
lyric; Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes (also some Psalms) 
are didactic ; Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles 
are historiographic, without any attempt or even pretension 
at prophecy. In the first Christian century some of the 
Rabbis proposed to take out of the Canon Proverbs, Song of 
Songs, Ecclesiastes and Esther, but did not succeed, as was 
the case also with the Book of Ezekiel. The three books of 
Psalms, Proverbs and Job, called by the Massorites JTO'N 
in reversed order, the initial letters of Thillim, Muhlei and 
Iyob — are provided with signs of accentuation different 
from other books of the Bible, which point to a chant in 
ancient time peculiar to these books, as they are also dif- 
ferent in rhythm and parallelism, being regularly divided 
in verses of two or three parallel lines, each line of three or 
four words, exceptionally of two or five words. 

2. The five books of Psalms are five collections made at 
different times. The last compiler, connecting the five into 



96 Hagiography. 

one book, did not obliterate the conclusion of each book, 
nor did he make any other changes in the text. This last 
compilation appears to have been accomplished in the time 
of the Maccabean prince and high priest Simon. Each book 
except the first contains psalms of different poets and 
anonymous hymns, without reference to chronology, from 
David, or even Moses (Psalm xc), down to the Maccabean 
age (ibid, cxviii.). The first book, with the exception of 
the four anonymous psalms, i., ii., x. and xxxii., are all 
ascribed, or inscribed, to David. The second book opens 
with eight psalms of the sons of Korah, followed by one of 
Asaph, then follow again Davidian psalms from Psalm 1. to 
lxx., with one anonymous psalm (lxxi.), which appears to 
belong to the previous one, closing with the psalm addressed 
to Solomon, the doxology and the remarkable words. " The 
prayers of David, son of Jesse, are finished." This state- 
ment, which was there in most ancient times (Pesachim 
117a) shows that the compiler of the second book knew the 
first and preceded those of three following books, as in each 
there are Davidian psalms. The third book opens with ten 
Asaph psalms, followed by two of the sons of Korah, then 
one of David, and two more of the sons of Korah, and 
closes with the psalm of Ethan, the Ezrahite, and a simple 
doxology. The fourth book consists, besides the prayer of 
Moses (xc.) and two psalms of David (ci. and ciii.), of 
anonymous psalms exclusively. The fifth book again con- 
tains fourteen Davidian and one Solomonic among its forty- 
eight psalms. 

3. The fact that some of the finest psalms are anonymous 
— and some of them, like Psalms cxxxv. and cxxxvi., are 
evidently very old— proves that the headings were found as 
they are by the compilers, who must have verily believed 
that those psalms, ascribed or inscribed to David and Solo- 
mon, were, in fact, their own literary productions, as is cer- 
tainly the case with Psalm xviii. ; or at least that they were 
written by contemporaries of those kings. Fifty-nine head- 
ings of psalms, also the musical instruments and the close 
of chapters are quoted and discussed in the Talmud by 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 97 

teachers, reaching up into the first Christian century (see 
Toldoth Aaron), hence the same headings were there then 
as now in the Massoretic Bible. The only difference is that 
Psalms was divided then in 147 chapters and now in 150.* 
This fact is also apparent in the Shir ham-Maaloth chap- 
ters (Ps. cxx. to cxxxiv.); five of which are ascribed to 
David, one to Solomon, and nine are anonymous. The 
same is evident from the hallel psalms. These are the 
hymns chanted by the Levites in the temple every feast and 
new moon day as part of the divine service. All of these 
psalms are anonymous, although certainly very old, as the 
origin of the custom even is beyond the traditions of the 
Hebrews. There are two sets of this hallel, one consisting 
of Psalms cxxxv. and cxxxvi., which is called hallel hag- 
gadol in the Talmud, " the great or rather the older hallel," 
and the other is called hallel hamitzri, "the lesser or 
younger hallel," consisting of Ps. cxiii. to cxviii. A cur- 
sory inspection of these two hallel convinces the reader 
that the second is an elaboration and amplification of the 
first and replaced it in the temple service. f 

*The reason of this 150 division may have been liturgical, to 
finish the whole Psalm book annually twice, reciting one daily, 
Sabbath excepted, for which the psalm was specially marked 
(Psalm xcii.), making twenty-five every month, and may have been 
made at the end of the third century. We know that the Levites 
sang daily in the temple the Mizmor shel Yom, " the psalm of the 
day" (Mishnah Thamid vii. 4). The particular psalms noted there 
may have been taken from an extant list, intended for any par- 
ticular week. Traces of the group of five are still there, as, for 
instance, the Shigayou Psalm v., the Lammah Psalm x., the five 
festive hallel Psalms cxiii.-cxvii. (cxviii. was added later), the five 
anonymous Lechu Nerannenah hymns xcv.-xcix., the fifteen Shir 
ham Maaloth hymns cxx.-cxxxiv., and the five Hallelujah hymns 
closing the whole book. It is custom yet with many to read five 
psalms daily, except on Sabbath, for which was made a special 
collection. 

+ 1 Chronicles xvi. 8-36, identical with Psalms cv. 1-15 and xcv. 
is also an elaboration and amplification of this first hallel, and is 
therefore anonymous in both cases. 



98 Hagiography. 

Yet not even the rabbis knew the time of the origin of the 
lesser hallel, and differ in opinion on the subject from the 
time of Moses to the Babylonian exile. (See Talmud in 
Pesachim 117 and 118.)* This lesser hallel contains no 
reference to any event by which the approximate date of 
its origin could be fixed. The older hallel. however, 
clearly and distinctly points to the earliest days of the 
Hebrews' first commonwealth, to Solomon's temple, or 
even to the tabernacle of Shiloh. It is primitive in form 
with its unison responses of ''His goodness endureth 
forever " without including the name of God. It praises 
God, without the use of any abstract terms, for his grace 
manifested in the creation of the world, the wonders he 
wrought for Israel in Egypt, and in the conquest of Sihon 
and Og and all Canaan. Then it deprecates idols and 
idolatry and admonishes Israel to praise and worship Jeho- 
vah. The only mention of Zion is in the last verse of the 
one hundred and thirty-fifth chapter, and this is also 
omitted in the one hundred and thirty-sixth. There is no 
mention of any event beyond the conquest of Canaan. The 
antiquity of these hallel psalms can not be doubted, and yet 
the compilers left them anonymous, as they found them. 
No more proof is necessary, all a priori speculations not- 
withstanding, that the compilers of Psalms invented no 
headings ; they found them so and exactly so in the MSS. 
which they compiled. The accusation of pious fraud and 
pseudonymousness would certainly be in the wrong place 
here, where no reason is imaginable inducing anybody to 
falsify a religious people's prayers, hymns and anthems, 
especially if the best of them are without name or date. 
Criticism will have to accept the headings of the Psalms as 
genuine and authentic, even if there is a discrepancy in the 
heading of Ps. lxxxv. Nor is it legitimate to doubt that 
King David was the author of Psalms. The poet and musi- 
cian, as represented by the authors of Nehemiah (xii. 46) 

* In Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1Y1 SlJD3 Ezra is mentioned as one 
of the ten authors of Psalms. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 99 

and of Chronicles (1 Chronicles xv. 28 ; 2 Chronicles vii. 6 ; 
xxix. 16, 17, and elsewhere), if we know that he surely did 
write Ps. xviii. (see 2 Samuel xxii.), and is noticed as the 
sacred bard in 2 Samuel xxiii. ; Amos vi. 5 ; Ben Sirah 
xlvii. 8-9 ; 2 Maccabees ii. 13, besides 2 Samuel xxii.* 

4. The argument that the Psalms were corrected, reshaped 
and rewritten by the Menazeach, or " Chief Musician," and 
hence that we are not in possession of the original text after 
all, does not invalidate their authenticity. For this suspi- 
cion attaches only to those Psalms which are headed Lam- 
nazeach, " to the chief musician," and concerning them we 
possess documentary evidence that euphonious changes 
only and none of sense or phrase were made, as is the case 
also with the Tikkun Sopherim and Ittur Sopherim in the 
Thorah. The Menazeach fitted the text to his chorus, 
melody or orchestra, which sometimes required rhythmical 
or euphonious improvements of the text. By comparing 
carefully Psalms xviii. with 2 Samuel xxii. ; Psalms xiv. 
and liii. (or Isaiah xxxvi -xxxviii. with 2 Kings xviii 17 to 
xx. 19 ; or 2 Samuel vii. with 1 Chronicles xvii. ; 1 Kings 
viii. and 2 Chronicles vi.) ; or the passages in Psalms cxliv. 
taken from Psalms xviii., viii. and xl.— and these are actual 
cases of transcriptions and no a priori suppositions — faith- 
ful adherence to the original texts is proved, and the 
changes made by the transcribers are without the least 
import to the sense of any passage. 

5. The various compilers of Psalms evidently betray their 
intentions to put together lyric devotional compositions of 
former days. The close of the second book offers proof that 
it was compiled after the first and before the third. In this 



*It is remarkable that Psalms begins with the word *"1EN, which 
word in the plural and in this sense occurs nowhere in Scriptures 
prior to this time, except in the concluding verse of Deuteronomy 
(xxxiii. 29), so that Psalms certainly points back to the Thorah. 
(See Midrash Thchilim to Psalm cxix.) The same seems to be the 
case in Proverbs, which begins 'bwo, a word found nowhere in 
Scriptures prior to this time, except in Numbers xxiii. and xxiv. 



100 Hagiogbaphy. 

third book, especially Psalms lxxiv.* and ixxix., the 
destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple are 
noticed, and in the chapter closing this book the end of the 
Davidian dynasty is lamented; the throne, like the altar, is 
crushed. Although there are in this book, as in every 
other, very ancient psalms (lxxx. to lxxxviii.), it could not 
have been compiled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. 
This, however, shows that the two former books were com- 
piled prior to that catastrophe. The fourth book (Psalms 
xc. to cvi.) is again a cheerful and joyful collection of 
excellent hymns and prayers, entirely different in tone from 
the third book. The compiler tells us in clear words at the 
end of his little book that he flourished after the restoration, 
evidently in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Although 
it is very difficult to show with any degree of certainty that 
any psalm was written as late as the time of the Maccabees, 
yet the fifth and last book contains, with very ancient 
psalms, also the latest compositions of this kind, like the 
six hallel psalms, Psalm cxix , which is certainly the text 
book from the boys' school, the five closing Hallelujah 
psalms, certainly hymns from the second temple, and 
others, so that its compilation could not well have been 
accomplished long before the Maccabean time, when the 
third Canon was fixed. The first two books, however, 
belong to Israel's first commonwealth. The first, being the 
Davidian psalm book with the loftiest hymns, like Psalms 
viii., xix., xxiv., xxix., xxxiii., full of re-echoes from nature's 
secret shrine and the spirit of holiness and devotion, is 
certainly the oldest. It is completely Jehavistic, while the 
second book is mostly Elohistic.f 

*Psalm lxxviii. was certainly written before the exile, as were 
most all chapters of the third collection. 

tThat the divine names, Jehovah and Elohim, do not point to 
different authors or ages, is especially evident from Psalms. The 
Davidian Psalms in Book I. are Jehavistic, and in Book II., with 
others, mostly Elohistic. There must be another reason for the 
frequency of this or that divine name. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 101 

The masters of song and the musical instruments are dif- 
ferent in the two books. In Book I. the King is yet called 
the Messiah, and David is twice called the servant of the 
Lord ; in Book II. there is the King only and no longer 
Messiah. Book I. refers continually to the house of the 
Lord, to Zion, and to the Thorah, all of which dis- 
appears in Book II. The hapless Levite (Psalms xlii. 
and xliii.) laments his absence and distance from the house 
of God, which is far beyond his reach. Book I. mentions 
historical events from the advanced age of David, and Book 
II. refers only to the earlier days of David. Summing up 
these criteria, we can but come to the conclusion that Book 
I. was compiled in Judah, when Zion and Moriah were in 
their highest glory ; and Book II. was compiled in the King- 
dom of Israel when its decline had come, mostly from the 
products of lamenting Levites, who by the schism of Jero- 
boam had lost their sacerdotal dignity. The Levites had 
their fifty-two cities in Israel, and the priests their thirty- 
two cities in Judah (1 Chronicles vi.). However, there is no 
chapter in Book II. that could be proved to reach beyond 
the reign of Jeroboam II., and none in Book I. that reaches 
beyond the earlier days of King Solomon. In Book I. are 
the main hymns of David, written in his advanced age and 
for the use of the Levites in public worship ; therefore the 
tetragrammaton is used, as in all other psalms intended 
for that purpose. In Book II. are such psalms of David 
which he wrote in his younger days, not intended to be re- 
cited in public worship ; therefore the term Elohim is used 
in place of the tetragrammaton. They being omitted in 
the first collection, the compiler of the second book added 
them to the psalms of the sons of Korah, which are from 
the Levites of the Northern Kingdom, and seem to have 
been used in the worship at the altars on the Heights, 
Bamoth of the faithful, that did not worship at the altars 
of Jeroboam. It is safe, therefore, to date the compilation 
of the five books of Psalms thus : 

Book I. 900 B.C. 

Book II. 800 B. C. 



102 Hagiography. 

Book III. 550 B C. 

Book IV. 450 B. C. 

Book V. 140 B. C, when the present canon was closed. 
6. The Book of Psalms, as before us in the Massoretic 
text, consists of one hundred and fifty chapters, divided 
into 2,527 verses. Psalm lxxxviii. 36, is marked as half of 
the book in the number of verses. These Psalms have 
become the substance of the civilized nations' devotional 
literature and imposed their phraseology on most all mod- 
ern languages. They breathe stirring religious inspiration 
in the simple, often childlike, language of nature, and give 
sympathetic expression to every form of human woe — now 
tears crystallized in plaintive words, then soothing consola- 
tion rising to triumphant hope, and jubilant anthem, soar- 
ing aloft, with the strains from a heavenly lyre, from the 
dark valley of misery to the very throne of the ineffable 
Deity. Words, human language, appear inadequate to the 
psalmist to utter the praise and glory of the Almighty, and 
he invokes all nature, the quick and the dead, to sing and 
shout Hallelujah ; all nature is roused from its deathlike 
slumber to proclaim aloud the glory of its Maker. It is the 
loftiest species of poetry ; the pinions of the highest genius 
could soar no higher, and none did, because the ideal of the 
psalmist is the most sublime ; few could reach, none sur- 
pass it. The psalmic tropes, metaphors, similes and para- 
bles, personifications and apostrophes are linked to nature, 
its immutable forms and phenomena ; there is no artificial 
imagery in them. Therefore, they are felt and understood 
universally, and impress equally forcibly the illiterate child 
of nature and the man of culture, if they are not too much 
estranged to nature and piety. This is perhaps the main 
cause of their universal adoption. Most important, how- 
ever, is the collection of odes, hymns, didactic poems, Shir, 
Michtham and Maskil, as a text-book of theology. It pre- 
sents to us what those ancient Israelites during a period of 
eight centuries believed, prayed, hoped, what they sang and 
what they felt, how they rejoiced and how they wept; the 
soul of a whole people, with all its mysteries, is unveiled 



( 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 103 

before our eyes, not in the dry formulas of dogmatics, nor 
yet in the abstract definitions of philosophy, but in the 
animate and non-deceptive language of prayer and adora- 
tion. 

7. The theological doctrine represented in Psalms is 
beyond any doubt the religion of the ancient Israel. 
Whatever were the laws, rites and cults, and however they 
changed, these were the well established and fixed beliefs, 
well rooted in the hearts and souls of the people. Reduc- 
ing these doctrines to principles, which are apparent in all 
the oldest and latest psalms, in the prayer of Moses, the 
psalms of David, the oldest hallel and the last hallelujah, KS 

we arrive at the following : A 

(a) The stern and uncompromising monotheism ; it is 
the one, and sole God who is worshiped ; no angel, no saint, 
no mediator, no savior, no hypostasis, no kind of fetish, 
idol, object or force of nature, passion or handiwork of man. 
God alone and absolute is the sole object of worship and 
adoration, the hope and trust of man, the rock of salvation. 

(b) The lofty position ascribed in the dispensations of 
Providence to virtue, righteousness, purity and holiness in 
God and man, as the very points in which they meet and 
which contain the summum ionum. 

(c) The nearness of God to man and man to God, so 
that the intimate relations, sympathy and love are but faintly 
expressed in the vulgar phrase of the fatherhood of God 
and the sonship of man. 

(d) Man appears in the brightest sunlight of omni- 
present Deity, and God is manifested with the most tender 
affections — almost too anthropomorphous — of the noblest 
humanity. 

These principles are not given in Psalms as something 
new or just discovered ; they are there as old, self-under- 
stood and universally cherished heritages — the common 
good of the common people, Levite, priest, prophet and 
prince included. The poet can not sing what the popular 
mind has not priorily conceived ; nor does a people pray 
what is not rooted in its beliefs. It is evident, therefore, 



104 Hagiography. 

that these great principles are older, much older than the 
oldest psalm ; and that they were always present in the mind 
of Israel. It must also be admitted that the pagan worship 
and aberrations, which prophets and chroniclers so loudly 
bewail and so emphatically condemn, were rebellious ex- 
ceptions in Israel; and the religion with these principles 
was the general rule and state of the people. This brings 
us face to face with the question : Where is the source, the 
origin of these principles? The Psalms reply for them- 
selves : the origin is in the Thorah. 

8. Proverbs, the second book of Hagiography, called 
Mishlei Shelomoh, contains thirty-one chapters and 915 
verses, each of two — seldom three — parallel lines of three or 
four words, in rhythm and diction like Psalms. It is a com- 
pilation of didactic poems, some as short as two stanzas. 
The substance of these poems is ethical, the ethics of the 
Hebrews in the rhythmical form ; the practical philosophy 
in the form of popular proverbs, evidently intended to be 
committed to memory, especially by the young, to whom it 
is addressed by the author, who always speaks to >J3, " my 
son." In form the whole book is like Psalm cxix., which, 
by its alphabetic acrostic — eight stanzas to each letter of the 
alphabet — betrays the author's intention to assist the mem- 
ory of young learners, only that this psalm is addressed to 
the *\}}}, " lad," the younger learner, and is, according to its 
diction, of a more recent origin than Proverbs. In Proverbs 
it is the uniform rhythm, and the rhyme of sense instead of 
sound, in the parallel lines, either explanatory or supple- 
mentary, which assist the memory; while Psalm cxix., 
intended for younger learners, has, in addition to these 
mnemonic arrangements, also the eightfold alphabetical 
acrostic. The authors of Koheleth, especially in the seventh 
chapter, and after him Joshua ben Sirah (second century 
B. C.) essayed to imitate the Solomonic rhythm, evidently 
to the same purpose, but did not exactly succeed. The 
author of the Book of Job succeeded better. 

9. According to its headings Proverbs consists of three 
parts. It is headed (i. 1) "Proverbs (poems) of Solomon, 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 105 

son of David, King of Israel ; " then chapter x., " Proverbs 
of Solomon ; " then chapter xxv., " Also these are Proverbs 
of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, 
compiled."* To this come yet chapter xxx., headed " The 
words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the Massah ;" and chapter 
xxxi., "the words of Lemuel, the king, a Massah" closing 
with the golden alphabet of woman. The fact that the first 
heading is explicit, adding to Solomon's name, " son of 
David, King of Israel," which is omitted in the two follow- 
ing headings, shows that the two following parts were added 
to the first, being before that a separate book. In the third 
heading the words, rf?tt OX " a ^ 30 these," admit of differ- 
ent interpretations ; they may be understood that only the 
third part was authenticated as Solomonic by the men of 
Hezekiah, or that also the second part was authenticated by 
them. In the latter case, however, this heading ought to be 
over the second part, and the repetitions in the third part 
from the second would be inexplicable. Therefore it seems 
correct that the third part was a separate manuscript, which 
the men of Hezekiah ascertained to be Solomonic, and 
added it to the book. Chapter xxx. may well be a Massah 
addressed to Solomon by one who assumed the fictitious 
name of Agur, as we shall see below ; and chapter xxxi. 
may also be addressed to Solomon, in behalf of his mother, 
by a Syrian seer, to which he responds with the golden 
alphabet closing the book. At any rate the Talmudical 
tradition, that the men of Hezekiah wrote or authenticated 
the whole book of Proverbs, is not supported by any explicit 

*lpTiyi the Hiphil of pny was used in the New Hebrew for trans- 
lating, from its primary sense of "transposing," which could not 
be its meaning here, as these chapters contain literal quotations 
irom former chapters, as, for instance, xxviii. 13, 14. It must be 
understood in the sense as used in Proverbs viii. 18, " dignified, 
permanent, lasting," and in the hiphil form to make something so. 
The men of Hezekiah authenticated, dignified and made perma- 
nent these chapters to be also of Solomonic origin, and added them 
to this book. 



106 Hagiography. 

statement in the book itself.* There can be no doubt 
that Solomon was a writer especially of Meshalim (1 Kings 
v. 9-14). His book, or books, Sepher Dibrei Shelomoh, was 
extant in the time when the Book of Kings was written 
(ibid. xi. 41), to which also Joshua ben Sirah testifies in his 
book (xlvii. 12-17). It is as certain a fact as it is that he 
built the temple, the cities of Tadmor, Balbec and Ezion 
Geber, that he wrote the first part of the Proverbs in the 
earlier days of his reign, for there is laid down the Solo- 
monic policy and standpoint as the head of the royalistic 
theocracy, to which he adhered almost to the end of his 
reign. It must be borne in mind that the theocracy as 
established by Moses was democratic, and remained so for 
nearly four centuries. With the ascension of King Saul it 
became royalistic. In its first form the prophet was the 
head of the State (Deuter. xviii. 15) ; the Council of Elders, 
among them also priests and Levites, the high priest pre- 
siding, and the judges were the head of the law (ibid. xvii. 8- 
13) ; the priests' functions were limited to the altar and 
public teaching (Leviticus x. 8-11 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8-11). The 
transition from the democratic to the royalistic theocracy 
was not easy. Jeroboam succeeded in abolishing the tra- 
ditional priesthood, but did not succeed in extinguishing 
the authority of the prophet. Under Saul and David the 
authority of the prophet remained superior even to the 
king's. Solomon attempted, successfully for a time, to set 
aside entirely the prophet's authority and establish his own 
as the sovereign head of the theocracy. During the reign of 
Solomon, to the very last years thereof, no prophet's voice 

* The ingenious suggestion, that " King Alkum " (xxx. 31) refers 
to the high priest Alcymos, successor of Menelaus in the Macca- 
bean time, and the " lion " (verse 30) refers to Judah, or his suc- 
cessor, Jonathan, is not impossible, as the compilers of the third 
Canon, in the time of Simon, may have added this passage, as they 
added Maccabean psalms to the Psalm book ; but then the " king " 
must be omitted from " King of Alcymos," as the latter was no king. 
But there is no necessity for this allegation, and nothing to 
prove it. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 107 

is heard, and when heard again it is that of the stern oppo- 
sition to the wise king (1 Kings xi. 29-39). The temple is 
built and pompously dedicated and no prophet is heard. 
The king does all the praying, receives himself the mes- 
sages from On High, and conjures down from heaven the 
fire upon the altar. There is no prophet anywhere. In the 
writings of the prophets in aftertimes it is David and Zion 
that are glorified; Solomon's name is not mentioned any 
more. Solomon opposed effectually the authority of the 
prophets, to establish his own as the sovereign head of the 
theocracy. On what did he base his claim of superiority to 
the prophets? The historical sources reply, he based his 
claim on superior wisdom, which God himself is said to 
have bestowed on him as it was given to no other mortal 
(1 Kings iii. 5-28; v. 9-14).* The difference, however, be- 
tween Solomon's and the prophetical wisdom is that Sol- 
omon's was simply his own, the natural product of his 
mind, and the prophetical was by inspiration, special mes- 
sages from On High. It was this prophetical prerogative 
which Solomon opposed. With this knowledge derived 
from history we open the Book of Proverbs to find in it 
the entire exclusion of all special prophecy. Wisdom, rea- 
son, understanding, knowledge, prudence, intelligent device, 
forethought and counsel are personified, apostrophized and 
glorified in all possible variations, especially chapters, i.-x., 
of song and eloquence. f David sings the praise of God, 
Solomon sings the praise of wisdom. David listens with 
awe and reverence to the prophet's message. Solomon 
receives none and wants none ; wisdom is his highest 
authority. 

* It is instructive to read 2 Chronicles i. 7-13, how that author 
who glorifies the temple builder otherwise modifies his wisdom to 
a much lower degree and omits much of what the author of Kings 
wrote before him. 

t The oldest commentary on the nature of Solomon's wisdom is 
in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, chapter viii., and there it is 
plain enough that it was intended as a poetical personification, 
and no hypostasis like the Gnostic Sophia. 



108 Hagiography. 

The whole Book of Proverbs, without an exception, is 
written in this very spirit, and must, therefore, be the gen- 
uine work of Solomon. There was no time after the 
Solomonic age (certainly not the time of King Hezekiah) 
down to the time beyond the Macedonian Alexander, when 
such a spirit domineered in Israel. We must also take into 
consideration that in the whole book there is no com- 
plaint of and no allusion to any national mishap, war, 
idolatry, moral corruption or any suffering at all, except the 
poverty of individuals, everything is lovely, peaceful, with 
plenty of wealth and sufficiency of protection. It was evi- 
dently the Solomonic age, with its advanced state of culture, 
peace and wealth, which produced the book. 

10. The Solomonic ethics as laid down in Proverbs is in 
substance the ethics of Moses, as Psalms is the lyric expo- 
sition of the theology of Moses. The ethical principles of 
Moses are reduced to practical precepts, and in this respect 
it matters not whether all passages of Proverbs are of Solo- 
monic origin ; all of them are in full consonance with the 
plan and principle of the book, hence if not by Solomon 
they are all in the spirit of the wise king. It is admitted in 
the Talmud that Solomon furnished the handle or ears to the 
closed urn of the Thorah (Ervbin 216,)* But it is also stated 
there (Taanith 8) by the chief Massorite of Tiberias, Rabbi 
Jochanan, that there is nothing in Proverbs, or even in all 
Hagiography, which is not suggested in the Thorah, and he 
discovers Proverbs xix. 3 suggested in Genesis xlii. 21. 
Those ancient expounders of the law credit Solomon with 
a number of ritual laws which he is said to have ordained, 
and yet at one time proposed to remove from the Canon Pro- 
verbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, because " It is merely 
the wisdom of Solomon" (Meguillah), who sought to be 
like Moses, for which the Bath Kol rebuked him (Rosh 
Hashona 21), and did not heed the warning of the Thorah 
in Deuter. xvii. 14-20, concerning the conduct of the king 

7\cry& Kn^ iy d^tk nS \>xw ns^S r\nn mm nrrn nSnru * 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 109 

(Sanhedrin 21). They entertained no very high opinion of 
Solomon's moral character (D'pD PRO WN1 tSHYl HJO) 
and held the very highest opinion of his wisdom OntDDPQ 
HD 1 ?^ *1DN)- Only in a few instances Solomon is placed 
higher than the prominent savant.* Thus is maintained 
(Maccoth 23) that the Holy Spirit was poured out in Sol- 
omon's court of justice; and furthermore (Sotah 41) that 
" Former Prophets " means David, Samuel and Solomon. 
This difference of opinions among the ancient sages would 
be inexplicable, if we would not know already that the 
policy of Solomon was anti-prophetical as far, anyhow, as 
the "judging" and "governing" was concerned, claiming 
for himself unlimited sovereignty by virtue of his superior 
wisdom, and that on the other hand, his ethics, in Proverbs, 
anyhow, is no more and no less than the principles of the 
Mosaic ethics reduced to practical precepts to meet the va- 
riety of vicissitudes and emergencies in the life of the indi- 
vidual and society. Some of those ancient rabbis did hold, 
as did also the author of the apocryphal book, " Wisdom of 
Solomon," " the wise man is superior to the prophet," which 
others did not admit. This explains the difference of 
opinions among the ancient rabbis on Solomon and his 
ethics. 

11. The Solomonic ethics is a commentary on the Mosaic 
ethics, as by reason understood. This is evident from the 
principle laid down in Proverbs i. 7 : " The fear of Jehovah 
is the beginning of knowledge," the spontaneous knowledge 
of the good, the beautiful and the true in all particular cases. 
This is further explained thus (Prov. ix. 10) : " The fear of 
Jehovah is the beginning (efficient cause) of wisdom and 



* The defense made for this religious character, " Whoever says 
Solomon sinned is in error," is contradicted in 2 Kings xxiii. 13: 
for the defense relies on the potential mood of TBS* TK (1 Kings xi. 
7) and understands the passage, "Then he intended to build" 
those altars to the gods of his wives, but did not actually build 
them; while in 2 Kings it is stated that Joshiah destroyed the 
Bamoth which Solomon had built to those gods. 



110 Hagiography. 

the knowledge of holiness is understanding."* It produces 
wisdom, viz : the correct moral judgment and the control 
over the will by that judgment. This again is explained 
(Prov. xv. 33) to this effect: "The fear of Jehovah is the 
correction of wisdom," it directs reason into the proper 
channel and guides the will to the proper action. It is on 
this principle that the author exclaims (Prov. xxi. 30), 
" There is no wisdom nor understanding, nor counsel against 
Jehovah," contrary to or in conflict with the God idea as 
known and understood in Israel, as expressed in the word 
Jehovah; whatever is contrary to this God-idea or con- 
flicting with it, is not wisdom, not understanding, not 
counsel. So did the author of Job also understand the 
fundamental idea of Proverbs. He sings the ode of wisdom 
(Job xxviii. 22) entirely in the sense of Solomon and closes 
it, " And he said to man, behold the fear of Adonai (equiv- 
alent for Jehovah), this is wisdom, and to eschew evil is 
understanding." This is the touchstone of genuine wisdom, 
the manifestation of correct understanding. So did also 
the author of the apocryphal book of the " Wisdom of Sol- 
omon " understand and reproduce the Solomonic principle 
of ethics, as wisdom based upon the fear of Jehovah. None 
perhaps has expressed it more forcibly than the princely 
prophet (Isaiah xxxiii. 6) : " The firmness of salvation, wis- 
dom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy time ; the 
fear of Jehovah is its treasury." What everybody knows 
need not be proved. Every reader of Moses knows that 
" Jehovah " is the word which expresses the God idea of the 
Mosaic scriptures, defined in various passages of the 
same Pentateuch ; and every one can see for himself that 
the whole book of Proverbs is exclusively Jehavistic. So 
everybody who has read Moses must admit that the ethical 
principle with him is based upon the cogitation and cog- 
nition of Jehovah and his nature of grace and holiness, so 

* Kedoshim in this case, like the plurals in many other cases, 
Adonim, Chnchmoth, etc., signifies the abstract idea of the terms, 
holiness, lordship, etc. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. Ill 

that man's knowledge of ethical doctrine is identical with 
his knowledge of God's moral attributes, and all moral 
obligation has its root in the Mosaic God-idea. This may 
be considered unphilosophical, but it is undoubtedly the 
Mosaic standpoint, and perfectly identical with the Sol- 
omonic standpoint, with whom also Yirath Jehovah, the fear, 
veneration, worship, cogitation and cognition of God as by 
Moses defined and taught, is the foundation and principle 
of all ethics and man's moral obligation. The opposition 
of the prophets and the objections of the ancient rabbis to 
the wise king's teachings finds its explanation in his oppo- 
sition to the prophets and their supremacy in his time, all 
of which, he thought, could be replaced by the superior 
wisdom which God had granted him, as far as the govern- 
ment of the nation and the dispensation of justice were 
concerned ; and as far as the self-government of the indi- 
vidual is concerned, he thought, the same principle was 
applicable, wisdom based upon and rooted in the fear of 
Jehovah with the revealed material before them was also 
all - sufficient, without any further special oracles of any 
prophets. This peculiar rationalism which always there- 
after had its prominent admirers in Israel, especially among 
the kings and princes, brought on him the ire of prophets 
and rabbis. The men of Hezekiah in collecting and com- 
piling the last portion of Proverbs, which they certainly 
believed to be of Solomonic origin, defend the wise king 
with the argument that he certainly took his ethical prin- 
ciple from the Thorah of Moses. 

12. Proverbs xxviii., the author speaks distinctly of the 
Thorah as the code of ethics, the canon of justice, and the 
source of religious instruction without any prophetical aid. 
He speaks of the Rasha, who flees where none pursues, in 
imitation of Deut. xxxii. 30, and the Tzaddik, fearless and 
confident like the lion. He speaks then (verse 4) of the 
friends of the wicked, viz : TMDH *DtJf " Those who forsake 
the Thorah, praise the wicked" and HIIH HOW" those 
who guard and observe the Thorah content with them," the 
former are the JH WJK "the men of evil that understand 



112 Hagiography. 

no justice," because they reject the Thorah, and the latter as 
*i *tPMO " those who seek Jehovah (in his Thorah) under- 
stand it all." He then speaks (verse 7) of nTfi ")VU " the 
guardian of the Thorah is a wise son," and, referring to 
Deut. xxi. 18-20, he concludes, " the companion of the 
riotous shameth his father," or the father brings such a son 
to shame, according to the above law, saying that the oppo- 
site of the guardian of the Thorah who spends his time in 
reading and searching the Thorah, is the companion of the 
riotous, that runs himself and his father into shame. Then 
(verse 9) he speaks of a third class, ^O^D WN TOO 
rf"nn, " one who turneth away his ear from hearing the 
Thorah," who does not only not observe the Thorah and not 
meditate therein, but would not hear of it if others speak 
to him of it, " also his prayer is an abomination ;" because it 
is not the expression of any honest religious sentiment. In 
this case Thorah can not signify any canon except the well- 
known Thorah of Jehovah, for the observer of which is the 
parallel in verse 5. ^ ^ODD, like Psalms cv. 3 and Isaiah 
li. 1, "those that seek Jehovah." Nor could it refei to a 
traditional Thorah, to which the term H1T0 is not applicable 
and the tft2W in verse 9 would be a mere tautology. The 
author evidently refers to the written and well-known canon 
called the Thorah of Jehovah or the Thorah of Elohim. 
This reference to the Thorah of Moses is also supported by 
the plain statements in Proverbs xiii. and xxii. 17 e. s.; by 
the statements of 1 Kings ii. 3 and viii. 36,37; also 1 
Chronicles xxii. 12, 13 ; and especially by the doctrine con- 
tained uniformly in the whole book. 

13. Two objections are urged against this theory. One 
is the manner in which the author speaks of sacrifices, 
Proverbs xxi. 3 and 22, and the golden alphabet of woman, 
with which the book closes. In the dedication prayer Solo- 
mon does not even mention the sacrificial cult (1 Kings 
viii. 22-61); and in the above passages the author merely 
repeats the words of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel xv, 22, 
23), as did several prophets and poets of Psalms without 
dereliction to the sacrificial cult. In chapter xxxi. the 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 113 

author sings the praise not of queens, princesses, concubines 
or other ladies of the court ; he sings the praise oi the plain 
citizen's noble spouse. It is a reply to his mother's chas- 
tisement, with which the chapter opens. Lemuel, the King's 
Massa, is addressed to Solomon, and the golden alphabet of 
woman is his excuse for his polygamy and the debauchery 
connected with it. He had not found among his thousand 
wives and concubines one like this, because he was a king 
and not a plain citizen. Besides this he closes his book 
with Yirath Jehovah as he begins it (i. 7), true religion as 
the fundamental principle of human dignity and greatness, 
with woman as well as with man, exactly as Moses did. 
The very first word of the book "Mishlei" occurs nowhere 
before Solomon in this sense except in the Pentateuch 
(Numbers xxiii. 18). 

There exists no good cause to deprive King Solomon of the 
authorship of Proverbs i.-xxv., or to doubt the veracity of 
the men of Hezekiah, who compiled the annex to the book. 
Consequently it is safe to place the former after 1000 years 
B. C. and the completion of the book 700 years B. C. 

14. The Book of Job (Ee-yob), the third volume of 
Hagiography, consists of forty-two chapters, one thousand 
and seventy verses, the middle of which is chapter xxii., 
verse 16. Except chapters i., ii. and xlii., which are prosaic, 
the book is written in the same meter or rhythm as Pro- 
verbs and Psalms, but differs from both in diction, espe- 
cially by its numerous quotations and imitations of older 
scriptures and many new terms.* As a poetical production 
it is the master work not only of the Bible, but also of the 
ancient world's literature. 

It is an epos, the hero of which is the man of perfect 
righteousness, and is composed of philosophical dialogues. 
Job, pain-stricken, bereaved of all his wealth, health and 
happiness, with his wife and his dearest friends against 
him, in a state of unspeakable misery, discusses with them 

*Like D'atn ,ntai atn ,a:n ynw >pp »oop »jns wy >t»By ,pny »-6d 

and many others. 



114 Hagiography. 

the theme of righteousness as the will of God and the duty 
of man. His friends maintain Job must be a grievous sin- 
ner, therefore Gcd punished him so severely, and admonish 
him to repent his misdeeds and to appeal to God's mercy. 
One of them attempts to console Job with the faith of the 
pious that are punished here for their sins and receive the 
full reward for their righteousness in life eternal. Again, 
another admonishes Job to submit without a murmur to 
the inscrutable will and wisdom of God, as man, who is a 
mere atom in God's creation, could not go into judgment 
with the Lord of the universe. He could but appeal to his 
mercy and grace. The fourth endeavors to review and 
refute the justification of Job and the harshness of his 
words uttered in a state of utmost pain of mind and body, 
basing upon the moral principle, that it is sinful to speak 
as Job did of God and his justice, that the woe-stricken 
must not thus cry out his pain and grief before the Father 
of man. Job's wife, worst of all, sarcastically upbraids him 
with his stern righteousness, which, she said, had brought 
him down to the lowest state of misery, and advised him to 
abandon all hope and faith, " Blaspheme God and die." 
Job, however, did not sin with his lips. He sternly rebukes 
his wife and argues against his friends — not always, indeed, 
in the most proper language, as one less woe-stricken might 
have done. He pleads his perfect innocence ; he knows 
himself free of sin and guilt ; he has done as much good as 
any man in his position could ; it is not punishment which 
is inflicted on him. He questions even the justice of God, 
in bringing such misery on frail man as punishment for 
sins committed, as the Maker knows how weak and perish- 
able the creature is, and man's misdeeds can not affect God 
in anywise. He argues against the ideas of future reward 
as a consolation in his present misery, as that reward was 
uncertain in man's mind ; hence it could not counterbal- 
ance his present misery, which is a certainty and contin- 
uous woe to him. He could not accept the inscrutability 
of God's will and wisdom as a consolation in his abject 
misery; ignorance is no consolation; his pains are no less 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 115 

grievous because he knows not why. He steadily main- 
tains his consciousness of justice and righteousness, hence 
he knows that justice and righteousness are God's will and 
man's duty; pain or joy, grief or happiness, however or 
whatever may come upon man and with what degree of 
intensity they come, man must not desert his own nature, 
and his nature is also God's nature ; he can not and must 
not desert or abandon justice and righteousness. I know 
not why I am woe-stricken, Job argues, but I know that 
justice and righteousness are the rock of humanity, hence 
also the essentiality of my Maker. God closes the argu- 
ment (chapters xxxvii. to xl.), and admonishes Job's friends 
(xlii. 7) " That ye have not spoken of me as properly as my 
servant Job." Job is also instructed by the Almighty that 
no mortal comprehends fully the plans and workings of 
Providence; and he confesses (chapter xl. 1-4 and xlii. 
1-6) that he had blindly argued — which the author of the 
book makes known to the reader in the very beginning by 
the allegory in heaven — he confesses : " I have heard of 
thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye hath seen 
thee, wherefore I abhor myself and I repent in dust and 
ashes. ' It is the epos of the perfectly righteous man, who 
in pain and grief changeth not his allegiance to righteous- 
ness, and even then reserves his moral fortitude to confess, 
that he, in his outcry of woe and his groans of pain, had 
not spoken as it behooves the righteous man. This is 
acknowledged by one of the oldest authorities mentioned in 
the Talmud, and mentioned only on account of this, his 
defense of Job (Sotah 22): "Rabbi Joshua ben Hyrcan 
said Job worshiped God out of love," which, according to 
those ancient Rabbis, is the highest degree of piety and 
moral perfection. 

15. The position of the Book of Job in the Canon is that 
of apologetics. Therefore it was placed after Psalms and 
Proverbs, although it is older than some Psalms and 
claims a closer resemblance to prophetical writings than 
Proverbs. In the course of logical thought there had to 
follow after the elucidation of theology in Psalms and the 



116 Hagiography. 

exposition of ethics based on that theology in Proverbs — 
where the Yirath Jehovah is treated as a well known and 
well understood conception — the apologetics of both in the 
Book of Job. The hero of the epos in the poet's mind may 
have been the man Job, the righteous patriarch living in a 
foreign country near the borders of the wilderness, whose 
consistent piety, in wealth and poverty, health and abject 
disease, under all vicissitudes of an eventful and mutable 
life, had become the admired pattern of a righteous man, 
as he is represented by the prophet Ezekiel, together with 
Noah and Daniel (Ezekiel xiv. 24). Or the term Ee-yob, 
which signifies "one subjected to animosities or persecu- 
tions," may be a personification representing the people of 
Israel exposed unjustly to the animosities and persecutions 
of petulant nations, represented in the allegory by Satan. 
The various opinions of Job's friends, against which he 
contends, may have been prevalent among different parties 
of that time in defense of Providence and the justice of 
reward and punishment; and, in fact, they are traceable 
in the history of philosophy both in Greece and the Orient. 
Or those opinions may have been prevalent among the 
Hebrews as the moral cause of Israel's sufferings among 
the nations, the dispersion, captivity and restoration ; and 
these various speculations are traceable in Prophets, espe- 
cially in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Deutro-Isaiah, and in some 
of the later psalms, as Job's principle is specially illus- 
trated in Isaiah liii. and Psalms 73, 94. Whatever may 
have been the plastic subject in that philosophical poet's 
mind — it is difficult now to ascertain it — the character of 
the book as a philosopheme is not affected by it ; it is the 
apologetics of the two main doctrines of Moses, viz. : 
revelation and righteousness. 

(a) Revelation, God himself speaking to man, is origin- 
ally Mosaic. Vayedabber Yehovah el, " God spoke to Moses, 
to Moses and Aaron, to the people of Israel," and not 
merely God appeared or said to this or that person in a 
dream or vision, by an angel or another vehicle of com- 
munication, is the formula of the revelation, peculiar to 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 117 

Moses only, and is found nowhere else in Scriptures, except 
once in Joshua xx , which is a quotation from Moses. The 
necessity of revelation is undoubtedly one of the main 
points which the author of Job seeks to demonstrate. He 
begins with a plot in heaven unknown to Job and his 
friends. He produces their arguments on the cause of Job's 
sufferings, none of which is the right one, for they are 
ignorant of the heavenly plot, and are unable to unravel 
the mystery or to satisfy Job, till at last Jehovah himself 
appears and enlightens Job on the momentous problem of 
Providence and righteousness. The author evidently wishes 
to tell us that without revelation we would not know this 
doctrine, and knowing it, we would not be able to under- 
stand it, as was the case with Job and his friends.* 

(b) Righteousness is an attribute of God (Deut. xxxii. 4), 
the fundamental duty and means of salvation to man 
(Exodus xix. 5, 6), is the substance of revelation, which 
was unknown to all Pagan religions of antiquity. It is the 
doctrine of Abraham and Moses only (Genesis xviii. 17-33) 
and the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. It is the 
foundation upon which the whole Mosaic dispensation 
rests, viz. : "God is just, he giveth to every man according 
to his ways and according to the fruits of his deeds." 
God's mercy, grace, holiness are included in his attribute of 
justice, and condition the execution thereof on man on 
account of his numerous imperfections and his free will. 
This makes righteousness absolutely the duty of man. To 
doubt the justice of God is identical with doubting the 
truth of the Abrahamitic and Mosaic revelation. This 
skepticism, it appears from Malachi, from Psalms lxxiii. 

* This seems to be the reason that the Talmud maintains Moses 
wrote the story of Balaam and the Book of Job, both being defenses 
of revelation, and plenary revelation, giving doctrine and law to 
man, according to those teachers is ascribed to Moses only. 
Balaam, the greatest of Gentile prophets, then and there is incon- 
sistent, superstitious, treacherous and immoral (Numbers xxv. 1 ; 
xxxi. 8-16, and Sanhedrin 86) ; he with his wisdom lacks the revela- 
tion and proves its necessity. 



118 Hagiography. 

and xciv., and the closing chapter of Nehemiah, had taken 
hold on people's minds when the author of Job wrote his 
apologetics, proving his position in the last chapters with 
God's own speech, pointing out to Job the power, wisdom, 
goodness and justice prevailing in the vast domain of nature 
everywhere ; too vast for man to comprehend it all, still clear 
and evident enough to force upon Job the conclusion that 
there is an eternal and universal justice and goodness con- 
ceivable in the whole of God's creation, although inscruta- 
ble and inexplicable in its details, in individual cases. 

16 When was this grand book written and who was its 
author? It is humiliating to confess that so grand and sub- 
lime a poet passed away and no trace of his name is left in his 
book, none in the nation's traditions, so that the oldest au- 
thorities had no knowledge of it. The time of this book's 
origin can be established by the following facts : 

(a) Job was not written in the prophetical period ; it is 
different in substance, method and style from all books of 
that period. It is not psalmodic like David ; not gnomic 
like Solomon ; not predictive like the prophets ; it is purely 
didactic and universal, and in the dialogue form like Plato 
and portions of the Zendavesta. Besides this, it philoso- 
phizes and contends with skepticism ; and a prophetical 
age doubts not. hence reasons not discursively. It is not 
the free, untrammeled and artless speech of an inspired and 
vehemently-moved mind ; the entire book is carefully and 
artistically finished ; it is a work of art as a whole and in 
all its details, and contains besides many imitations and 
quotat' ons from older scriptures. Its horizon embraces the 
cosmos, which, besides the first chapter of Genesis and 
Psalm civ., has no precedent in Scriptures ; and its specu- 
lations on human nature and events are universally human, 
as none did write or speculate before him in Palestine. 
Again, in all the dialogues of Job and his friends the tetra- 
grammaton does not occur (except once, xii. 9, in a quota- 
tion) ; the Shaddi and El, or E'ovah, mostly take the place 
of the ineffable name. The book could not possibly have 
been written at any time during the prophetical period. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 119 

(b) On the other hand, the book presents other pecu- 
liarities. It is not prophetical, nor yet is it apocalyptic. It 
knows of the Benai Elohim; also of Zechariah's Satan, but 
they are not even called Malachim, "Angels," and may be 
taken as poetical fictions. No angels, no visions of unde- 
fined allegories, no oracles from on high appear in the dia- 
logues. Only in the introductory and closing chapters, 
when God speaks, the terms Elohim and Jehovah occur. 
None of the later writers whose products are preserved in 
Scriptures would let God speak to man directly ; neither 
Daniel, Ezra nor Nehemiah rose to that height in his spirit- 
ual exaltation, none would thus freely use the tetragram- 
maton or its next equivalent, Elohim. It is, therefore, evi- 
dent that Job was written nearer to the prophetical age 
than those other books, and, according to what we know of 
the prevailing skepticism in the time of Malachi, the poet 
of Job must have flourished and written during the last 
days of Nehemiah or very shortly after, when the prophet- 
ical strains still reverberated in the people's souls, the 
catholicity of the Deutro-Isaiah had taken root in the pop- 
ular mind, and an enlarged conception of nature and cos- 
mos pervaded the land from the Chaldeans on the one side 
and the Egyptians on the other. Therefore we may take 
for granted that the Book of Job was written between 420 
and 400 B. C , as the Talmud has it. 

17. The fourth book of Hagiography is composed of the 
five Meguilloth " scrolls," and in this order : Song of Solo- 
mon (Shir Hashshirim) ; Ruth, Lamentations (Aichah) ; 
Ecclesiastes (Koheleth), and Esther. This succession of the 
" scrolls " in the volume is of recent date, as noticed before, 
and follows the order as they were read in the synagogues, 
viz. : Shir Hashshirim was read on Passover, when the year 
of the Mosaic festivals begins ; Ruth was read on Pentecost ; 
Aichah the ninth day of the month of Ab, the anniversary 
day of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple ; Koheleth 
during the Feast of Booths, and Esther on Purim day. 
According to their supposed authors, as fixed in the tradi- 
tions, their order should be Ruth, Shir Hashshirim, Kohe- 



120 Hagiography. 

leth, Aichah, Esther, and in this order we must consider 
them. 

18. Ruth consists of four chapters, eighty-five verses, the 
middle of which is ii. 21. It is an idylic narrative in artless 
prose, glorifying the ancestress of the royal house of David, 
whose name was Ruth or Ruoth, " the friendly." She was 
the mother of Obed, and he was the father of Jesse, who 
was the father of David (Ruth iv. 17). According to this 
statement, the story of Boaz and Ruth transpired three 
generations or a century before the time of David, and so 
the book begins : " And it came to pass in the days of the 
Judges." According to the Talmud, Boaz, the hero of the 
idyl, was identical with Ibzan (Judges xii. 8), of Beth 
Lehem, who was Judge in Israel after Jephthah. Accord- 
ing to 1 Chronicles ii. 9-12, Boaz was a lineal descendant 
of Nahshon ben Aminadab, the princa of the tribe of Judah 
in the time of Moses. The character of Ruth, with her 
filial devotion to her mother-in-law, is almost identical with 
that of Jephthah's daughter, so that both seem to reflect the 
spirit of the age. Still it does not give any assurance that 
it was written prior to the days of David, whose genealogy 
seems to be the main object of the little volume. The 
Talmud maintains that Samuel, the author of Judges, was 
also the author of Ruth. The beginning of the book shows 
that it was written after the close of the period of the 
Judges, hence after Samuel's abdication. We might sup- 
pose that the story was known with its details in the family 
of Jesse only, as it was of no particular interest to others ; 
and Samuel when he anointed David, coming in close 
contact with the family, and being much interested in it, 
learned its family traditions and wrote this lovely story to 
gain the popular favor for his favorite, David. The diction 
of the book hardly differs from that of Judges. But then 
Samuel must have been quite old, and it does not seem 
likely that so old, earnest, serious and disappointed a 
statesman and prophet could have written so light, lovely, 
simple, sublime an idyl, in which life, love, nature in their 
most charming simplicity are portrayed so plastically. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 121 

Besides, the spirit of the Ruth scroll does not seem to be 
the same with that of the uncompromising theocratic- 
democratic and warlike patriot. In Ruth, the daughter of 
Moab, the enemy of Israel, the worshiper of Chamosh is 
glorified, graced with the sweetest womanly virtues and 
charms, and is held up as a plastic pattern of excellent 
piety and purity to the daughters of Israel. This, like the 
Book of Jonah, Deutro-Isaiah and Job, betrays a tolerance, 
catholicity and universal religion, which hardly looks like 
the time of Samuel. It rather looks as if David in his 
younger days had written it and Samuel had made it 
known in favor of the young bard and hero. The language 
of the whole volume is that of a young, poetical and viva- 
cious writer. There is no expression in the whole narrative 
which points to an age beyond the Davidian, while that 
artless simplicity of speech, manners, occupation, food, 
house, the touching and unconscious innocence of the 
heroine, the simple urbanity of Boaz, although evidently a 
prominent aristocrat among his townsmen, point to a high 
antiquity, evidently to a pre-Davidian age. This is also 
supported by the frequent use of the tetragrammaton and 
Shaddi in the conversational passages, which no writer 
after the prophetical millenium would do. It is the frequent 
reference to the Thorah of Moses which misled critics, and 
also us in former days, to place the authorship of Ruth 
after the time of Ezra. But after we do know that in the 
time of Samuel and David the Thorah was well known, 
there is no reason whatever why the authorship of the Book 
of Ruth should not be given to Samuel and David during 
the last half of the eleventh century B. C. 

19. The Song of Solomon or Song of Songs — Shir Hash- 
irim — consists of eight chapters divided into one hundred 
and seventeen verses, the middle of which is iv. 14. In 
diction and rhythm it is purely Solomonic and Hebraic, as 
it is in its sceneries and tropes purely Palestinian. There 
is no allusion in it to a divided country; Jerusalem and 
Thirzah, Lebanon, Karmel, En Gedi and Baal Hamon are 
equally delightful, the tower of David and the tower of 



122 Hagiography. 

Lebanon are of equal distinction, Gilead in the north, and 
the seam of the wilderness in the south are present in the 
poet's mind. As a profane lyric poem or a collection of 
poems, an outpouring of the most impetuous passions, a 
glowing word picture of indomitable love " mighty like 
death " on the background of all that is beautiful, fragrant, 
refreshing in motion, shapes and colors, beguiling and 
intoxicating in human beauty and Palestinian climate and 
scenery, Shir Hashirim ranks highest in the world's litera- 
ture. And yet with all its enticing and sense-enchanting 
tropes and almost lascivious descriptions it denies nowhere 
the chastity and purity of the Hebrew woman, the devotion 
and self-control of the Hebrew lover, which always outshine 
and overwhelm the wild fire of passion and the inebriety of 
sensuality. Nor do all the opulent beauties of nature com- 
pressed by the poet in so small a frame form the prominent 
and plastic presentation of the poem ; they are mere back- 
ground and frame-work, mere ornamentation of the main 
picture, which is human excellency, love, honor, purity, 
faithfulness, vehement resistance to seductive sensuality, 
strength of character and the triumph of a noble woman- 
hood over the very tempting enticements of the world's 
most envied treasures of happiness. No Greek, no Arab, 
none but a Hebrew poet could produce such a poetical 
creation. 

20. The story which, with some exceptions, is the subject 
of the whole Shir Hashirimis quite simple. Sulamith (the 
feminine Solomon), an artless shepherdess, comely though 
sunburnt, is the object of King Solomon's ardent love. 
She is brought to Jerusalem, and under the influence of all 
the dazzling brilliancy of the royal court, the seductive 
promises of the most extravagant luxury and pomp, the 
persuasive language of the royal lover, the choruses of the 
court and the daughters of Jerusalem. Sulamith's best 
afTections, however, belong to the shepherd in her rural 
home; she clings to him, sings his praise, fancies and 
dreams of him only, addresses to the absent lover the 
words of love's liquid fire, remains steadfast and firm in 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 123 

her affections and forces the poet to the conviction, " Love 
is strong as death — jealousy is cruel as the grave — the coals 
thereof are coals of fire, a most vehement flame. Many 
waters can not quench love, neither can the floods drown 
it ; if a man would give all the substance of his house for 
love, it would utterly be contemned " (viii. 6, 7). The 
whole of Song of Songs is a glorification of the daughter of 
Israel, the triumph of the ideal over the sensual, the moral 
idea over the voluptuous and sensuous allurements, out- 
side the centers of wealth, luxury and sensuality. Yet the 
main subject is several times dropped in the book and other 
songs are inserted (iii. 7-11) ; iii. 1-5 and the similar v. 2-8 
are dreams of Sulamith, as she says (v. 2), which she tells 
the daughters of Jerusalem ; viii. 8-10 and 11-14 are frag- 
ments of poems. 

21. In this natural signification Shir Hashirim may be 
well taken as the product of King Solomon or at least of 
the Solomonic age, which, as the Talmud maintains, the 
Men of King Hezekiah compiled, and the non-Solomonic 
poems may have been taken into the Solomonic because 
they had been addressed to him, so that ft'dlV/l *1£W in the 
heading may be intended to express both " by " and " to " 
Solomon, as in the case in Psalms with the " Le David " 
and " Li Shelomoh." The fact that Solomon is the rejected 
lover in the poem does not contradict his authorship. It is 
the identical case as with the golden alphabet of women in 
Proverbs. The polygamist Solomon must have well under- 
stood that he could never possess a woman's genuine love 
like the poet's ideal, and so he felt himself rejected by Sula- 
mith. He objectified himself in the poem, as many other 
poets did, and this is the most touching lyric echo. It is 
maintained that there are Aramaic or Syriac words in the 
poem, therefore the conclusion that it must have been writ- 
ten in the Kingdom of Israel, where the Syriac at an early 
date was interpolated in the Hebrew — for which not the 
shadow of proof exists ; or it was produced in or after the 
Babylonian captivity, which is impossible. The exile, the 
mourner, the genius with mortified sentiments among a 



124 Hagiography. 

mortified and hapless people, could not sing so cheerfully 
and joyfully ; nature does not appear to him so illuminated, 
love not so sublime ; the music of the hapless is plaintive, 
his song melancholy, and none can rise very high above the 
sentiments dominant in his community. In the time of 
Solomon, who reigned over the largest portion of Syria, it 
could not appear strange to anybody if Syriac terms had 
been adopted by Hebrew writers or vice versa. Besides this, 
however, there exists no proof that the terms pointed out as 
Syriac were not Hebrew long before, or that prior to the 
adoption of the Aryan terms in the Syriac there was much 
difference in the roots of the two languages. This is also 
applicable to the song of Deborah.* No word can be called 
Syriac, because it was no longer used in the Hebrew and 
preserved in the Syriac. Again, that there are fragments 
of other poems inserted in the Sulamith poem was not ad- 
vanced originally by Abraham Ibn Ezra and repeated by 
ever so many exegetics down to Moses Mendelssohn, Aaron 
Wolfsohn and Joel Levy ; the theory appears already in the 
Midrash ( Rabbah to Canticles, I. section), where Rabbi Aibo 
maintains that it announces itself as containing at least 
three different parts, and this was in the third Christian 
century. From this standpoint Shit Hashirim becomes in- 
telligible, and especially one of its most striking peculiari- 
ties is explicable. God's name is never mentioned in this 
book, no reference even to God — except in Shalhebethjah, and 
here the term jah is an adjective expressing strength, power 
in the superlative degree — no Providence or any religious 
sentiment is met in it. This is without parallel in the Bible, 
except the Book of Esther. The only supposition to ex- 
plain this seems to be, that neither of these books was writ- 
ten for any divine purpose, and those ancient men obeyed 



*£> sheh instead of "IKW asher is used in both poems, and this could 
but prove that the poets used this abbreviation long before it was 
adopted in prose composition. The proof is in the heading of Shir 
Hashirim, which certainly must be younger than the poem, and 
there asher and not sheh is used as the relative pronoun. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 125 

very strictly the third commandment ; they would not write 
or pronounce any name of God in profane song or narrative. 
It seems evident from a passage in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 
101a) which found its way into the " Zohar " in Therumah, 
that Shir Hashirim was in common use as banquet songs 
and at such other symposia, against which, of course, Tal- 
mud and Zohar protest,* although in the Mishnah ( Yadaim 
iii. 5 and iv. 6) it is not decided that, as Rabbi Jose main- 
tains, the great poem is endowed with the same grade of 
holiness as other holy books. 

22. When the question rose, if Shir Hashirim is a profane 
poem or collection of Solomonic poems, why did the Men 
of Hezekiah compile the little volume, and if they did this 
in honor or out of particular respect for the king's illus- 
trious sire, why did the great Sanhedrin that established 
the third canon accept it among those holy books? — then 
it was advanced, and especially by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph 
and his supporters, that Shir Hashirim was an anagoge. 
Its characters are symbolic. Sulamith is the congregation 
of Israel; Solomon, except in one passage, represents the 
name of God; its tropes are esoteric, its entire structure is 
mystic, it discusses the love of God to the congregation of 
Israel, that mystic love which the prophets also symbolize 
by the love of bridegroom and bride. The main question 
might have been answered thus : this grand monument of 
a sublime genius deserved careful preservation, and is no 
less glorious to the ancestors of the nation than the records 
of heroes on the fields of battle, or the wisdom of savants 
in the nation's council. Nor is its subject less divine than 
the friendship of David and Jonathan so carefully described 
in 1 Samuel, or the undying love of Jacob for his son 
Joseph ; love in any form is a bright reflex of divinity. 
Sulamith's faithful and indestructible love is as divine and 
as worthy of record as a nation's love of country proven 
genuine in trying and distressing struggles. We might 
suppose, however, that those earnest, serious, chaste and 

'ft nor p»3 iniK nwi 'pn't? hw piqq #m\>n ?»"! un * 



126 Hagiography. 

God-fearing men could not well appreciate such arguments. 
Those savants, however, do not give any reason why just 
this one production of Solomon should be an anagoge, 
when all his other writings, as also those of David and 
Samuel, their contemporaries and immediate successors, are 
plainly exoteric. It could not be on account of the subject, 
as the love of God and Israel is fully expressed in the 
covenant, upon which the whole structure of Israelism was 
based, and Solomon built the temple and had deposited in 
its sanctum sanctorum the " Ark of the Convenant of Jeho- 
vah" (1 Kings viii. 1-11). There was no cause whatever 
for putting the main and well known conception under a 
cloud of mysticism, nor does it seem proper to represent 
the divine love in so sensual a form. Besides all this, 
Sulamith does not reciprocate the love of Solomon ; she 
rejects him and remains true and faithful to her absent 
shepherd lover ; hence the esoteric idea of the poem would 
be, that God loves the congregation of Israel, but she loveth 
best the charms and bliss of nature's gifts, or clings tena- 
ciously to other ideals of happiness. This, indeed, may 
have been the esoteric idea of the poet, in the opinion of 
the Akiba school, and thus again Solomon objectifies him- 
self. Anyhow, there is no alternative left; either Shir 
Hashirim is plainly exoteric, the poems were written by 
Solomon, with some addressed to him, in the tenth century 
B. C, or it is esoteric and was written under circumstances 
of national prosperity and happiness similar to the Solo- 
monic age, which never was the case except in the early days 
of the reign of the Egyptian Ptolemies over Palestine. 
Then the idea of the Platonic love had reached Palestinian 
poets, together with the Grecian forms of poetry and the 
worship of external beauty, so exuberantly displayed in 
Shir Hashirim. Then the struggle of Judaism against 
alluring Grecism was still young and mild, and seemed so 
much more dangerous to the former. The highest ideals of 
the Grecians were beauty, philosophy, poetry and the king, 
while Judaism clung to Sinai, righteousness, God and his 
law. The poet, while glorifying the daughter of Israel, well 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 127 

represents this struggle between two civilizations. Sula- 
mith, the daughter of Sinai, that " cometh up from the 
wilderness leaning on her beloved " (viii. 5) well represents 
the congregation of Israel, faithful, true to her beloved. 
The beloved is the God of Israel, who in the whole poem is 
spoken of by Sulamith, but never appears personally on 
the stage of the poem ; he is the invisible God, whom no 
idols can represent. The highest ideals of the Grecian 
mind, philosophy and the king, could best be represented 
by the philosophical King Solomon, and he is the absent 
shepherd's mighty rival. But he is rejected, the wisest of 
kings is vanquished by the unshaken faith of the plain 
shepherdess ; the Grecian ideals can not captivate the 
congregation of Israel ; she remains faithful to her beloved, 
to Sinai, to the God of Israel. Here is the anagoge without 
mysticism. It is an allegory.* 

We can not decide which is the case, but we know that 
only these two are probable : either Shir Hashirim is an 
exoteric, poetical effusion of King Solomon and some of 
his contemporaries, and was compiled by the Men of Heze- 
kiah, as the tradition has it, or it is an allegory and was 
written in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, 221-204 B. C. It 
was accepted in the third canon, because it represents so 
well the cause of Judaism in its struggle with Grecism. 
Because it was written so late it contains no name of God 
whatever, and, therefore, it was used as a popular song at 
banquets and other symposia. 

23. Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) consists of twelve chapters, 
two hundred and twenty-two verses, the middle of which is 
vi. 10. It is a dissertation on the Highest Good (summum 
bonum) in plain prose, without any attempt at ornamenta- 
tion or poetical symbolism, an imformal philosopheme, 
hence without technical terms, and, with the exception of 
very few foreign words, purely Hebrew. Tradition gives its 
authorship to King Solomon ; affirming that it, like the other 

* See on this point our " History of the Hebrews' Second Com- 
monwealth," p. 80. 



128 Hagiography. 

works of Solomon, was compiled in its present form by the 
Men of King Hezekiah in the seventh century B. C. Moses 
Mendelssohn divides the dissertation into the following thir- 
teen interconnected essays: (1) Chapter i. 1 to i. 11, intro- 
duction; (2) from i. 12 to ii. 11 ; (3) from ii. 12 to ii. 26; 
(4) from ii. 27 to iv. 3 ; (5) from iv. 4 to iv. 17 ; (6) from iv. 
18 to v. 19 ; (7) from vi. 1 to vii. 14 ; (8) from vii. 15 to viii. 
9; (9) from viii. 10 to ix. 12; (10) from ix. 13 to x. 15; (11) 
from x. 16 to xi. 6; (12) from xi. 7 to xii. 7 ; (13) from xii. 
8 to the end of the book. This division is logical as far as 
the different parts are concerned; each presents a unity, 
according to Mendelssohn's interpretation ; but the connec- 
tion of the various parts into one logical unit is not estab- 
lished. This was felt by the Rabbis of the Talmud, who 
maintain in the name of Aba Areka ( Shabbos 306) that it 
was proposed to take Koheleth out of the Canon, " because 
his words contradict one another ; " to which is added in 
Vayikrah Rabbah (chapter 28) by Rabbi Levi, a cotempo- 
rary of the former : " because some of his words incline to 
heresy (as if) the bands were loosened; there is no justice 
and no judge." It was not done, as stated in the Talmud, 
"because the beginning and the end thereof are words of the 
Thorah." Evidently those ancient savants did not succeed 
in discovering a logical unity in Koheleth. " The beginning 
and the end thereof," on the merits of which this book was 
retained in the Canon, can not refer to the introductory and 
closing verses of the book, for these do not appear 
Solomonic. The whole book, from i. 12 to xii. 7, is written 
in the first person, Koheleth speaking to the reader ; while 
the first twelve and the last seven verses are in the third 
person, the editor or compiler speaking to the reader. The 
closing verses, in which Koheleth, the proper noun, becomes 
hak- Koheleth y the common noun, and in which the compilers 
do expressly mention themselves (verse 11 ) as nifllDX ^V3, 
and warn the young (*^2) against making many books 
(verse 12), could only be the postscript of the Men of 
Hezekiah, or of the compilers of the third canon. The same 
seems to be the case with the eleven introductory verses, 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 129 

which consist only of general statements to the one point, 
that man's deeds are without any effect on nature or man- 
kind; nothing can be changed in the world's process or 
man's destiny. " There is nothing new under the sun." 
This, however, is but one point of the many, and not even 
the main point discussed in Koheleth — the main point is 
the summum bonum. It appears, therefore, that the first 
editor or compiler of the Koheleth manuscripts knew but 
those portions thereof which discuss that fatalistic doctrine ; 
and a second editor or compiler added thereto such other 
Koheleth manuscripts, which complete the work as a 
philosopheme on the summum bonum, and wrote the con- 
clusion of the book. Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary 
to Koheleth (twelfth Christian century), and after him the 
philosophical exegetists, Levi ben Gershom, Isaac Abarbanel, 
Obadiah Seporno, Joseph Ibn Jochiah and others, expounded 
Koheleth and attempted to harmonize the apparent contra- 
dictions of statements and doctrines in the book, without 
observing, however, that the introduction does not corre- 
spond with the whole book, and the conclusion can not be 
by the author of the book. 

24. The cause of the apparent contradictions in Koheleth 
is that the author either quotes from other documents or re- 
duces to writing such current sentiments which he discusses 
and contravenes from his standpoint in regard to the sum- 
mum bonum, and either the compiler or the transcriber failed 
to mark those passages, so they stand now in the text in 
contradiction to the other passages thereof. The exegetists 
failed to distinguish the assumed themes from the argu- 
ments and conclusions of the author, therefore they failed 
to harmonize the statements and doctrines of Koheleth. Its 
author is a firm monotheist, the ha-Elohim is his designa- 
tion of the Deity. He believes in Providence, which has 
preordained all things from the beginning, and believes no 
less in the freedom of man, who may try and do all things 
which, in his opinion, may lead him to attain the summum 
bonum. He believes in the justice of God, who brings to 
judgment every deed of man, and laments over the injustice 



130 Hagiography. 

prevailing in human government in consequence of man's 
free will. So he believes in creation and the Creator's wis- 
dom, who has made everything beautiful in its time and 
place and made man upright, perfectly prepared to attain 
the highest good, and believes no less that many fail in ap- 
preciating God's wisdom and their own aim and destiny on 
account of their ignorance or their submission to the lower 
passions. The author clings steadfastly to the principle 
that there is universal necessity in nature and history and 
individual freedom in both. He believes in personal im- 
mortality, "And the spirit returns to God who hath given 
it." The golden mean in everything is his moral principle, 
and in this he finds the means to attain the summum bonum. 
He is no fatalist, no pessimist and no pantheist. From the 
purely religious standpoint of Moses and the Prophets he 
argues the question against all prevailing beliefs in his time, 
showing not only their inability to secure the summum 
bonum, but as their last sequences the disirability of suicide, 
life not being worth living ; " all is vanity and windy 
thought." Yet we feel and know that human nature is im- 
bued with the desire to live and the longing after happiness, 
consequently he is forced to the conclusion that his stand- 
point is the truth from which man can reach the summum 
bonum. Koheleth is apologetic like Job, opposite the phil- 
osophical views prevailing in his age, and so in order to 
understand the book correctly the passages must be divided 
into the assumed themes and the author's arguments and 
conclusions. 

25. According to traditional beliefs King Solomon is the 
author of Koheleth, although his name is never mentioned 
in the book. The heading speaks of Koheleth as a son of 
David, King of Jerusalem, but this is evidently taken from 
i. 12, the actual beginning of the book. " I, Koheleth, was 
King over Israel in Jerusalem," to which " Son of David " 
is added, and for which no authority is given. The author 
(i. 16 et seq.) speaks of his great wealth, luxury, power and 
wisdom, which seems to point to King Solomon, yet no 
name is mentioned, neither Solomon nor a son of David. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 131 

" Koheleth " is no name of a person, as is evident from the 
" hak-Koheleth " (xii. 8). There is no evidence in the book 
that Solomon was its author or that he was a son of David. 
The question always remains unanswered : If Solomon 
was its author, why is his name not given, as in Proverbs 
and Song of Songs? The entire argument of Koheleth is 
apologetic of the Solomonic principle laid down in Proverbs, 
that the fear of God, the theological postulate, is the safe 
foundation upon which wisdom or human intellect must 
base its moral doctrine and regulate its conduct in order to 
attain the summvm bonum; only that in Proverbs the prin- 
ciple is advanced especially in regard to the state and the 
ruler or rulers thereof, and in Koheleth it is discussed chiefly 
with reference to the individual and his means to attain the 
highest good. Therefore, the governing power of wisdom 
is here considerably modified and in all problems of morality 
the golden mean is recommended. But all this does not 
prove that Solomon or a son of David was its author. The 
King of Israel in Jerusalem may be fictitious, like the word 
Koheleth. Nor is this proved by those passages in the book 
which point to Solomon's disappointments toward the close, 
of his reign, which necessitated a modification of his prin- 
ciple in regard to wisdom ; any other savant or reasoning 
prophet may just as well have referred to this fact to 
strengthen the argument that the individual wisdom also, 
even if based on the fear of God, is insufficient in all cases to 
reach the highest good. On the other hand, the book 
affords no direct proof against the authorship of Solomon. 
The arguments against certain Grecian philosophemes, 
especially against Epicurism, Skepticism, the self-sufficient 
Rationalism of Aristotle, and the Pessimism more or less at 
the bottom of all Grecian mythology and speculation, is no 
proof; as all those speculations may have been and undoubt- 
edly were current in the Orient long before formal phi- 
losophy utilized them. The Syriac and Aryan terms prove 
nothing against the time of Solomon, as we have noticed 
before. The absence of the tetragrammaton, the covenant, 
and congregation of Israel, everything that is specifically 



132 Hagiography. 

Hebrew, Judaic or Israelitish throughout this book again 
proves nothing, as it evidently was not written for Jew or 
Gentile especially — and Solomon was the king of a large 
number of non-Israelites ; it is an argument of equal force 
to all monotheists, and was evidently addressed to all and 
not to the Hebrews only. No prophet and no prophecy is 
referred to in Koheleth — this again looks like the days of 
Solomon — because it is a piece of reasoning from principle, 
fact and analogy, which has nothing in common with prophet 
or prophecy. It seems, therefore, correct to maintain that 
the Men of Hezekiah did compile certain writings of the 
Solomonic age addressed to the congregation called " Kohe- 
leth," as the term signifies, because they are addressed to 
the individuals to unite them in sentiments to a congrega- 
tion of similar doctrines. The king's name was not given 
on account of the uncertainty as to the author. Centuries 
after, during the struggle between Grecism and Hebrewism, 
at a time when the third canon was compiled, other manu- 
scripts, believed to be by the same author, were added to 
the older volume, and the present Book of Koheleth received 
its present form. Then Koheleth received the signification 
of the congregation of Israel arguing against the encroach- 
ments of Grecism; Sinai versus Olympus, monotheism 
against philosophy, stern righteousness against sensuality, 
a life of joy and gladness against asceticism, optimism 
against pessimism, with the golden mean everywhere. If 
this is correct, the Book of Koheleth received its present 
form about 200 B. C, in the time of Antiochus the Great in 
Syria, and the boy king in Egypt, containing materials from 
the time of Solomon, if not entirely from himself, as com- 
piled by the Men of Hezekiah. 

26. The Book or scroll of Lamentations, called by the 
rabbis Kinnoth, was originally called Aichah, according to 
the first word of the same, as it is called now and is desig- 
nated in all Hebrew manuscripts and prints. It consists of 
five chapters, three of which begin with the same word 
Aichah, divided into one hundred and fifty-four verses, the 
middle of which is iii. 34. These five chapters are five 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 133 

poems apparently independent of one another, the first two 
of which are lamentations, and the last three are elegies con- 
taining consolation. Their unity is (a) in the subject, the 
capture, destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and over- 
throw of the country and dissolution of the nation. The 
third chapter, although it chiefly laments the sufferings of 
the author, according to Abraham Ibn Ezra's commentary, 
is also an elegy on the discomfited and exiled Israel; and 
(6) in the artistical construction of these poems. Each 
chapter consists of twenty-two stanzas, and each stanza in 
the first four chapters begins with a letter of the Hebrew 
alphabet in the usual order, only in chapters ii. and iv. the 
Pai (£)) precedes the Ayim (^), otherwise the alphabetical 
acrostic is perfect. In the third chapter there are three 
verses to each letter, beginning with the same letter, and in 
the last chapter the alphabetical order is omitted, but the 
number twenty-two is preserved. In meter, the first and 
second chapters are alike ; each stanza, consisting of three 
lines, each line of three or two feet (words), or two and 
three, or four as an exception. The third chapter with its 
threefold alphabet is in meter somewhat different, its lines 
— two to each stanza — are mostly of 3-2 or 2-2. The fourth 
and fifth chapters also divide each stanza in two lines, each 
line in 3-2 or 2-2 feet. It is evident, therefore, that we 
have before us in this book or scroll carefully and artistic • 
ally constructed poetry and no irregular effusion of senti- 
ment and thought as in the books of Jeremiah or Ezekiel. 
This is also evident from the numerous metaphors, similes, 
apostrophes and personifications in this book. As a poet- 
ical production of a high order this book is no less remark- 
able than it is for the depth and warmth of its patriotic 
sentiments and its word painting of the profoundest grief 
and affliction over a nation's downfall and a country's 
catastrophe. The destruction of neither Troy nor Car- 
thage, Nineveh nor Babylon produced an elegaic monument 
of similar grandeur and sublimity. 

27. Three times before its destruction Jerusalem was 
besieged and captured by the Babylonians supported by 



134 Hagiography. 

Syrians, Edomites, Moabites and Amonites, viz. : under 
King Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 1), under King Jehoiachin 
(ibid., verses 11-16), and from the ninth to the eleventh 
year of King Zedekiah (ibid. xxv. 1). The second king 
together with his princes and high dignitaries was carried 
into captivity (2 Kings xxiv.; 2 Chronicles xxxvi.), 
and the last king was deprived of his eyesight after 
his children had been slaughtered, and was then dragged 
into captivity. All these calamities of the three invasions 
and their destructive effects together with the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the temple are lamented in the three 
chapters of Lamentations, beginning with the word Aichah, 
viz., the first, second and fourth, evidently blended in the 
poet's mind into one prolonged catastrophe, as if all the 
disastrous events had happened simultaneously. The third 
chapter is the elegy of the author written in the first person, 
in which he sings in melancholy strains his own painful 
fate in that time of disaster and defeat, destruction and 
annihilation, together with the sorrow and grief which 
overwhelmed the wounded patriot at the sight of his peo- 
ple's misery and his country's destruction, rising, however, 
from under the thick cloud of that double misery to the 
luminous height of light, consolation and hope, with his 
trust in God and his grace. It seems that the third and 
fourth chapters should be reversed, which would make of 
the four chapters a continuous elegy, setting forth, in the 
first place, the greatness of the nation's calamity and disas- 
ter and its effect on the poet's mind ; then his own personal 
afflictions, which depress and deject his soul; and then, 
notwithstanding the double grief and the hopeless future 
before him, his trust in God, his source of consolation, and 
his unshaken faith in the grace of the Almighty. As the 
order of the chapters is now, it seems that chapters iv. and 
v. belong to another author ; one who not only mourns over 
the past events, but also laments in chapter v. the present 
state of misery and the cheerless future of his vanquished 
people in the power of a despotic conqueror and fierce ene- 
mies i and yet, like the first author, he rises above all disas- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 135 

ter and benighting prospect of the future to consolation 
and hope by and with his faith and trust in God's loving 
kindness, with which the fifth chapter closes so pathetic- 
ally. There can hardly be any doubt that the prophet 
Jeremiah was the author of the first three chapters of 
Lamentations. If the fourth and fifth chapters belong to 
another author he must have been a cotemporary of Jere- 
miah, as none but an eye-witness could produce so vivid 
and impressive a description of any event. Therefore, we 
may set the date of Lamentations between 586 and 560 
B. C.,' the year of King Jehoiachin's release from prison ; for, 
after that event, as is evident from Isaiah's orations, the 
feeling of pain and grief over the nation's fall and the fate 
of the vanquished could not have been as fierce and oppres- 
sive any longer as it appears in the closing chapters of 
Lamentations. The question, if Jeremiah was its author, 
why was it placed in the third and not in the second canon ? 
is easily answered, viz : because Lamentations are no proph- 
ecies, and the second is the prophetical canon. It is no 
less easy to tell when he wrote these elegies viz : after the 
captors of Jerusalem had taken him from his prison and he 
had gone along with other prisoners in chains as far as 
Ramah, where Nebuzradan released him and he went back 
to Mizpah and staid there with Gedaliah till he was 
forced to go with the assassins to Egypt, which was at 
least two months after the fall of Jerusalem. In Ramah he 
began his lamentations (Jeremiah ix.). There the prophet- 
ical lyre was tuned to the melancholy strains of the elegy 
(ibid. xxxi. 15). Hence it follows that Jeremiah wrote his 
Kinnoth (his former Kinnoth were lost, 2 Chronicles xxv.) 
in the months of Abh and Elul y 586 B. C. He may have 
written the last chapters after his return from Egypt, when 
the effects of the conquest had become most bitterly felt. 
28. The book or scroll of Esther consists of ten chapters 
of one hundred and sixty-seven verses, the middle of which 
is iv. 7. It is a prosaic, well constructed narrative, of which 
tradition maintains it was written by the Men of the Great 
Synod under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Abraham 



136 Hagiography. 

Ibn Ezra thinks it is a translation from a Medo-Persian 
Chronicle. It is just as well possible that it was written in 
Persia, when Antiochus Epiphanes invaded that country, to 
encourage the rebellion in Judea, and the Men of the Great 
Synod adopted it as the authentic narrative of that affair, a 
number of which were in circulation, as is evident from the 
Greek version, the two Aramaic versions, and the narrative 
of Josephus. It contains an episode of the history of 
Ahasuerus, a Medo-Persian king, who, after executing his 
wife Vashti, selected as his consort out of many maidens a 
daughter of the tribe of Benjamin, whose name was Esther 
(a star) and also Hadassa (a myrtle). She was an orphan 
adopted by her uncle, Mordechai, and, like him, a scion of 
the ancient family of Kish, who was also the father of King 
Saul. Ahasuerus knew not that she was a Jewess, nor that 
she was the niece of Mordechai, who stood in some intimate 
connection with the royal court. The king had a favorite 
minister whose name was Haman, a scion of the royal house 
of extinguished Amalek. He came in conflict with Morde- 
chai, who would not show the demanded honors to the 
mighty minister. He contracted such a revengeful hatred 
against Mordechai and his race that he obtained a decree 
of the king that on a certain day in the month of Adar all 
Hebrews should be slain by the populace and their property 
to be free booty te the murderers. The decree was published, 
and, according to the laws of that country, could never be 
revoked. By the influence, however, of Mordechai upon 
Queen Esther, and by her intercession with the king, the 
murderous scheme was defeated, the mighty misister was 
deposed and put to death, and the Hebrews were enabled to 
defend themselves againt their assailants. The excited 
populace, with a prospect of rich booty, rose on that given 
day, according to the king's decree, to slaughter and spoliate 
the unprotected Hebrews, who, however, were prepared to 
meet their enemies and made a great slaughter among them 
in the city of Susa, and chiefly in the adjacent provinces 
Mordechai became the prime minister of the king ; in con- 
sequence thereof, and perhaps chiefly on account of their 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 137 

heroic defense, the Jews became much more respected 
among the populace than before. The day after this, viz., 
the 14th day of Adar, and in the city of Susa also the 15th 
day of Adar, were made days of festivities and rejoicings, 
called " Purim." By order and request of Esther and Mor- 
dechai the Purim was established among all the Israelites in 
all countries. That the Purim existed before the book of 
Esther was written is evident from the book itself (ix. 9-32. ) 
That this day of feasting and rejoicing was generally cele- 
brated among the Israelites is evident from 2 Maccabees i., 
the account of Josephus, its mention in Meguilloth Thanith, 
quoted also in the Talmud (Thanith 186 and Meguillah 5c), 
and from the rabbis of the first century, from and after 
Rabbi Jochanan ben Saccai, who knew of special laws and 
regulations concerning the Purim day, and the reading of 
the Esther book on that day. The feast itself is consider- 
able testimony in favor of the fact related in the book, as 
feast.s, like fasts instituted by a nation, especially by Israel, 
always commemorate a historical occurrence. Yet if the 
Purim had been instituted soon after Ezra and Nehemiah, 
it might be maintained that it was adopted from the Per- 
sian heathens ; but when the Hebrews had become most 
zealous and scrupulous observers of the laws of Moses in 
every detail, as they certainly were from and after the fourth 
century B. C, such an adoption was clearly impossible. 
The occurrence narrated in this book could not have hap- 
pened prior to Darius Hystaspis, because under his reign 
the institution of the " Seven Princes of Persia and Media " 
(Esther i. 14) was established. It could not have occurred 
under Darius, Xerxes or Artaxerxes, as the authors of the 
books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles must have noticed 
the important event and prominent persons. The next fol- 
lowing three kings of Persia reigned together but twenty 
years, with none of whom the dates of Esther correspond, 
nor do they correspond to the reign of the two last kings 
who reigned together but two years. There are left but Ar- 
taxerxes Mnemon, 404 to 359 B. C, and Darius Ochus, 359 
to 338 B. C. We know of the former that during the last 



138 Hagiography. 

ten years of his reign a fine of fifty shekels for each lamb 
sacrificed in the temple was imposed upon the Hebrews, 
and that was certainly not the Ahasuerus of Esther who 
was so much influenced by Mordechai and Esther.* There- 
fore Darius Ochus only could be that Ahasuerus. To him 
and his character every line and date fits exactly. He was 
an enemy of the Hebrews and Phoenicians in the first year 
of his reign. He made the feasts described in Esther, slew 
eighty of his brothers, and became the indolent, sensuous 
and foolish despot, Ahasuerus. Besides, he did not call 
himself Darius ; he called himself Artaxerxes, son of Arta- 
xerxes, and so does the Syriac translator call (Esther i.) 
Ahasuerus. The Purim story c'ould not have occurred prior 
to 345 B. C, and then there was no longer the barest possi- 
bility for Hebrews to adopt a Heathen festival, nor to invent 
such a story on the Persian court. If it had been a fiction 
it must have been located in India, Ethiopia or the Desert 
of Arabia. Susa, the Persian court, and all about them 
were too well known in Jerusalem to be thus misrepresented. 
It is certain, from the book itself, that the Haman edict was 
of a local nature, not for the 127 provinces, and the whole 
occurrence transpired in Susa and adjacent country. There- 
fore, nothing was known about it in Jerusalem or the other 
cities and provinces, and so the Purim feast was instituted 
in Susa first and then by the influence of Queen Esther and 
Mordechai also in Jerusalem, and from thence it spread all 
over the dispersed Israel after the advent of Alexander the 
Great. The book of Esther, however, it seems was written 
about 160 B. C. 

29. The Book of Daniel is before us in twelve chapters 
(modern division), seven Sedarim (ancient division), 357 
verses, the half of which is v. 30. It is Hebrew from i. 1 to 
ii. 4 and viii. to the end of the book ; the part from ii. 4 to 
vii. 28 in Aramaic, as it is called there (ii. 4), or Eastern 
Syriac. Two peculiarities of this book are, that from i. to 
vii. it records disconnected events, one in every chapter, 

*See our History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, p. 29-31. 



Peonaos to Holy Writ. 139 

and each is a miracle ; and from viii. to xii. it is a record of 
apocalyptic prophecies. In the first part the author speaks 
of Daniel in the third person, and in the second part Daniel 
appears as the author, and always speaks of himself in the 
first person. This, aside from the two languages of the book, 
suggests that it was not written by one author. 

There could be no doubt that Daniel really existed in 
Babylon during the exile, a great and wise man, as outside 
of this book we find his name in Ezekiel (xiv. 14 andxxviii. 
3) among the most righteous and the wisest of his age, and 
in the Grecian version of his book, in connection with the 
narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. Nor could 
it well be doubted that this Daniel did write, when Josephus 
reports (Antiq. x. viii. 5), that one of Daniel's books was 
shown in the temple of Jerusalem to Alexander the Great, 
and further on (x. xi. 7) speaks of several books of Daniel, 
which, it appears, had been extant in the time of Josephus. 
The question would only be, did he write this book, or any 
parts thereof ? The Talmud states, the men of the Great 
Synod wrote it, but this we know may refer only to the 
compilation of the book as in the case of Ezekiel. 

The narrative part of Daniel was certainly not written in 
Judea, it being in diction and description by far superior to 
any Aramaic production of Palestine. It was certainly 
written where that language was the vernacular and had 
skilled literati, which was the case in Babylon before its fall. 
Each of those episodes closes with a special glorification of 
the God of Israel, so that they appear to be myths, legends 
or allegories based on facts, to impress the reader with the 
special information that Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and 
Darius praised and glorified the God of Israel, seeing as- 
they did that the Lord wrought such extraordinary miracles 
for his people, seemingly abandoned in captivity. Taken 
in this sense, Daniel may have written these and many sim- 
ilar episodes, as the author of the book of Jonah did with 
similar good, humane and patriotic intentions. The Tal- 
mud in Chelek takes a similar view, at least in one case, 
the three men thrown into the fiery furnace, and the dead that 



140 Hagiography. 

Ezekiel . revived in the same valley of Dura. This view of 
the subject anyhow accounts for the strange accident, that 
none of the authors of that or any subsequent age refers to 
those astounding miracles, and that Nebuchadnezzar, who 
thus glorified the God of Israel, did not release King Jehoi- 
achin from his prison. 

The prophetical portion of Daniel, from chapter viii. to xi., 
was certainly not written in Babylon. Had it been written 
there during the captivity it must have become known 
among the exiles and its author must have taken a high rank 
among the prophets as well as Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah 
and Malachi did, when the prophetical Canon was estab- 
lished by the Men of the Great Synod, and the book could 
not have been placed among the volumes of Hagiography, as 
was actually done. This part of the book, together with 
the first chapter to ii. 4, which is an introduction, and chap- 
ter xii., which is a resume and conclusion of it, bears strong 
imprints of Essenean doctrine, as reported by Josephus. 
This sect at its inception was certainly identical with the 
Hassidim of 1 Maccabees, the main support of the Macca- 
bees in their great struggle against Syria. This leads us 
directly to the time when the Hebrew portion of Daniel 
was written, to the occurrences of which in the time of 
Antiochus Epiphanes »and the victories of the Maccabees, 
all those prophecies point.* 

30. The seventh chapter of Daniel reports a dream of the 
author which one of the bystanders (verse 16) in that dream 
expounded. Both the dream and its explanation are so 
sublime, picturesque and mystic that almost any part of 
history, or the entire historical process of humanity, could 

* The seventy weeks of Daniel, about which so much was guessed 
and written, begin with the first exile of the Israelites to Babylon, 
when King Menassah was carried to Babylon a vanquished captive 
(2 Chronicles xxxiii. 11). That was the beginning of Israel's down- 
fall and loss of independence and nationality, from which it never 
recovered till after the victories of the Maccabees, which established 
again the independence of Israel, in round numbers seven times 
seventy years after that first catastrophe. 



Pronaos to Holy "Writ. 141 

be discovered in it, although the author evidently intended 
to prophesy no more than the end of Babylon's power and 
sovereignty. This is undoubtedly the part of the book of 
Daniel shown to Alexander in the temple in which the 
priests discovered the prophecy of the Macedonians' 
victories and conquests. This very fact may have started 
the belief among the expounders of the ancient oracles 
that Daniel's predictions in that chapter reach to and far 
beyond Alexander. When Antiochus Epiphanes began his 
work of oppression, and schemed extermination in Judea, one 
of the Essenean or Hassidim patriots, perhaps the deposed 
high priest, Onias, or Mattathia himself, or his younger co- 
temporary, Jose ben Joezer, wrote the introduction and the 
Hebrew commentary to the book of Daniel, showing that 
his prophecies refer to this age and its calamities, this 
struggle and its victorious outcome, the fall and the rise of 
Israel, the desecration and the consecration of its sanctuary 
and priesthood — he calls the high priest Messiah and 
prince — -the end of servitude and the resurrection of Israel's 
sovereignty. With this commentary, introduction and con- 
clusion, the book was circulated among the patriots, to fire 
the souls with glowing patriotism and courage, and it was re- 
ceived and read with enthusiasm, and did well its intended 
work. This procured for the book of Daniel in this form a 
place in the Canon among the Hagiography, which was es- 
tablished after this event. We place, therefore, the Aramic 
portion into the year 540 B. C, and the Hebrew portion 
into the year 170 B. C, with Daniel as the author of the for- 
mer and perhaps Jose ben Joezer of the latter. He being at 
the head of the Synod the tradition correctly maintains 
that the Men of the Great Synod wrote or rather finished and 
edited the book of Daniel. 

31. Ezra and Nehemlah were taken as one book also by 
the authors of the Massorah. The two books, as they are 
before us, consist of Ezra, ten chapters, and Nehemiah, 
thirteen chapters (modern division). In the Massorah 
both books are quoted together as having ten Sedarim 
(ancient division), 688 verses, the middle of which is Nehe- 



142 Hagiography. 

miah iii. 32. The Septuagint has three Esdras, viz. : i. 
Esdras which is apocryphal and is neither mentioned nor 
quoted in any of the Biblical or Rabbinical sources; ii 
Esdras (in some MSS. of the Septuagint i. Esdras) is 
identical with the canonical Ezra, and iii. Esdras with the 
canonical Nehemiah. That this division in the Septuagint 
is recent is evident from the fact that neither the Massorah 
nor the Talmud knew of it. Chapters iii. and iv. of the 
apocryphal book are original, were adopted by Josephus 
(Antiquities xiv. 5 and xi. 2) and contain sufficient internal 
evidence, that the author was an African Hebrew, perhaps 
identical with the author of II. Maccabees, or with that 
Aristobul who wrote commentaries for a king of Egypt in 
the second century B. C* 

32. The contents of Ezra and Nehemiah are episodes of 
Israel's history 536 to 423 B. C, as follows : 

Chapter i. (Ezra) begins with the closing verses of 
Chronicles, the proclamation of Cyrus to the exiled Hebrews 
to return to their ancient homes and to rebuild the temple 
of Jerusalem, those remaining in the Medo-Persian Empire 
to furnish them with substantial means, and the vessels of 
gold and silver taken from the temple now returned to them. 

Chapter n. A register of the families returning with Zeru- 
babel and Joshua, the high priest, their arrival in Palestine. 

Chapter in. The erection of the altar in Jerusalem; 
reintroduction of the Mosaic cult ; celebration of the feasts 
on the first and fifteenth days of the seventh month ; prepa- 
rations for the building of the temple and placing the 
foundation stone. 

Chapter iv. The Samaritans being refused co-operation 
in the rebuilding of the temple, succeed in obtaining an 
interdict from the Persian court under Cyrus and his suc- 



* See our History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, pp. 
89, 131 e. s. There exists in Latin a fourth book of Ezra, or Eeve- 
lations of Ezra, which belongs to the apocalyptic literature in the 
time of the destruction of Jerusalem, without any claim to his- 
torical authenticity. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 143 

cessors, Cambyses and Smerdes,* and the work was inter- 
rupted. 

Chapter v. Haggai and Zechariah, the prophets, encour- 
age Zerubabel and Joshua to proceed with the building, 
beginning of the reign of Darius II., they do ; Tatnai and 
others oppose it and write a letter to Darius to enforce the 
interdiction. 

Chapter vi. Darius finds in Ecbatana the original edict 
of Cyrus, ordains the completion of the temple, which is 
completed the third day of Adar in the sixth year of Darius 
II. ; the temple is dedicated; the first Passover is celebrated 
by the returning exiles. This ends the first part of the 
book. The second part begins fifty-eight years later. 

Chapter vn Artaxerxes sends Ezra with a second 
colony, and gifts for the temple, to Jerusalem, appoints him 
Chief Judge and promulgator of the Law in all provinces 
west of the Euphrates, with sufficient executive authority. 

Chapter viii. Register of the families returning with 
Ezra, their journey and arrival in Jerusalem, delivery of 
the holy vessels and gifts. 

Chapter ix. The princes accuse their brethren of having 
taken foreign wives ; Ezra's prayer and address. 

Chapter x. Ezra convenes a general meeting, to remedy 
this evil, a representative body is appointed ; the names of 
the main persons guilty of that transgression are ascertained 
and registered. Here the book of Ezra closes abruptly. 

Nehemiah i. opens thirteen years after Ezra's coming to 
Jerusalem with Hanani reporting to Nehemiah the deplor- 
able condition of Jerusalem ; Nehemiah's prayer. 

Chapter n. He asks permission of the king to visit his 
country; he is appointed Pasha, and starts on his journey, 
arrives in Jerusalem, inspects at night the walls of the city, 

* Verses 6 and 7 they are called pnipnK and KnwnmK, and the 
former can not be identical with his namesake in the book of 
Esther, nor the latter with KflDBPnrnK or Artaxerxes in chapter 7. 
It seems, therefore, that those kings had different names in the 
Aramaic and Persian, as is evident partly from the Persian sources 
and the inscriptions, and Herodotus Grecised the one or the other. 



144 Hagiography. 

tells the rulers his mission, is scorned by Sanbelat, Tobiah 
and Geshem. 

Chapter in. The building of the walls of Jerusalem. 

Chapter iv. Tribulations and hostilities against which 
he contended. 

Chapter v. Liberating the poor and enslaved ; his own 
disinterestedness and self-sacrificing work. 

Chapter vi. Dissensions, tribulations and hostilities at 
home and from abroad are overcome. 

Chapter vn. Military organization and orders for the 
protection of the city ; reviewing and completing the register 
of the families that had returned from Babylon. 

Chapter viii. Presenting, reading and expounding to 
the people the Law of Moses on the first day of the seventh 
month by Ezra and Nehemiah ; celebration of the Feast of 
Tabernacles. 

Chapter ix. Second public meeting and reading of the 
Law ; address of the Levites. 

Chapter x. Solemn acceptance of the Law of Moses as 
the law of the newly organized State, a document signed by 
the representative Levites, Rulers and Priests, and confirmed 
by an oath; ordinances added to the Law by Ezra and 
Nehemiah. 

Chapter xi. The names of the men who moved from the 
country into Jerusalem ; organization of the Levites ; ap- 
pointment of Patachiah as the king's agent ; the districts 
of the country. 

Chapter xii. Another and later register of priests and 
Levites ; the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem. This 
ends the account of Nehemiah's twelve years' administra- 
tion. He returns to Susa, comes back to Jerusalem in 424 
or 423 and then occurs what is narrated in chapter xiii. 

33. The language in these two books is the plain Hebrew 
prose with the exception of the official documents from the 
Persian court or addressed to it, which are Aramaic. Very 
few Aramisms are in the Hebrew portions, except the names 
of persons, places, coins, official documents and offices. 
Some of the Hebrew pieces like Ezra ix, 6-15; Nehemiah 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 145 

i. 5-11 j ix. 8-37, although full of reminiscences, sound clas- 
sically pure. The diction gives us no points on hand to as- 
certain when these books were written.* It is certain that 
the first part of Ezra, including the seventh chapter to verse 
27, was written prior to the next part. It is a mere compilation 
of documents which must have been preserved in the temple. 
It is written all in the third person, the author never speaks 
of himself. He narrates briefly in chapter vii. 1-10, what is 
actually narrated in chapter viii., so that it does not seem 
that one author wrote both, and besides, he describes and 
lauds Ezra (vii. 6, 10) in a manner which Ezra would not 
have said of himself. He makes Ezra a son of Sheraiah, 
the last high priest in the Temple of Solomon, slain after 
its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 18; Jere- 
miah lii. 24), whose great grandson he could hardly have 
been, as Ezra came to Jerusalem 128 years after the death 
of Sheraiah. Whether it was the intention of the writer to 
suggest that Ezra was the descendant of the last high priest 
and the lawful heir by the right of primogeniture and the 
Joshua dynasty was a second line by Jehozadek; or what- 
ever other intention he had ; thus much is sure that Ezra 
would not have denied his father. The same author does 
a similar thing, and it seems for the same reason, with 
Zerubabel, whom he calls son of Shealthiel, when he actually 
was the son of Pedaiah, but the former was the second son 
of King Jehoiachin, Assur was the first born (1 Chron. iii. 
17, 18). 

The next parts of Ezra and Nehemiah, from vii. 5 to 
the end of the second book, are purely Hebrew and in the 

*The supposition of some critics, that the King of Persia is called 
(Ezra vi. 22) "King of Ashshur" (Assyria), points to the time of 
the Seleucidic kings — provided "Ashshur" signifies Syria, which 
is never the case — is a mistaken notion, as Cyrus was also King of 
Assyria, and in that passage is also referred to the exiles of the 
children of Israel from Assyria and the proselytized Gentiles (verse 
21) after the exiles from Babylon in verse 19; the author calls 
Cyrus King of Assyria. It must be borne in mind that many of 
the northern tribes also returned with Judah and Benjamin. 



146 Hagiography. 

first person, the authors narrate their own stories in their 
own words. These portions of the book present themselves 
as the original writings of Ezra and Nehemiah, and there 
exists no reason whatever to doubt it. Nehemiah vii. 5 e. s. 
is not identical with Ezra ii., the two accounts differ in the 
various numbers of the men belonging to each family 
returning from Babylon, although they agree in giving the 
sum total, yet it seems evident that both accounts could 
not have been written by the same author. Nehemiah viii., 
ix. and x., different entirely in diction from the rest of the 
book, is an official document, written by an eye-witness of 
that important affair (See ^PUN and the following verbs in 
chapter x.). Chapter xiii. is again Nehemiah's own. 

34. It is evident that the first part of Ezra (i.-vii.) was 
compiled by an earlier historian than the rest of Ezra and 
Nehemiah, and not long after the arrival of Ezra in Jeru- 
salem. It can not belong to the author of Chronicles, 
although this latter book was known when Nehemiah xii. 
23 was written, the Sepher Dibre Hayamim is expressly 
referred to. Nor can it be questionable that the author of 
Nehemiah xi. and xii. was the compiler of the books of 
Ezra and Nehemiah, as they are now in the Canon. This 
compiler must have flourished about 350 B. C, as he men- 
tions the six high priests from Joshua to Jaddua (xii. 10, 
11), and we know that the third was in office in the time of 
Nehemiah (iii. 20), and from Josephus that the last was 
still alive when Alexander the Great appeared before the 
walls of Jerusalem. In the Talmud, however, it is main- 
tained that Simon the Just was that high priest. If this 
passage is not a later addition, the two books could not 
have been compiled long before 350 B. C, about sixty to 
seventy years after the death of Nehemiah, in the time of 
Darius Ochus, whose name seems especially to be men- 
tioned xi. 22, and he reigned from 359-337 B. C. But then 
it seems strange that this compiler betrays no knowledge 
of the three great events which occurred prior to 350 B. C, 
viz : the building of the temple on Mt. Guerizim, the high 
priest John slaying his brother Jesus in the temple, and the 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 147 

Haman persecution under King Ahasueros. It would seem, 
therefore, that the Darius in Nehemiah refers to Darius 
Nothus, who reigned from 423 to 404 B. C, and the passage 
of the six high priests is either a later addition, or the Tal- 
mud has the correct tradition, viz : that the grandson of 
Jaddua, Simon the Just, was the high priest who received 
Alexander the Great. Simon died 292 B C, after a reign 
of forty years. His father reigned thirty years ; this brings 
Jaddua down to the year 362 B. C. If so, Ezra and Nehe- 
miah were compiled during the life-time of Jaddua at any 
time between 390 and 360 B. C, within a few decades after 
the death of Nehemiah, prior to the fratricide in the temple 
which occurred in 372. 

35. Chronicles i. and ii. is before us in 29 and 36 chapters 
(modern division), 25 Sedarim (ancient division), 1,656 
verses, the half of which is I. Chronicles xxvii. 25. The con- 
tents of this book are I. Chronicles i. to viii., the genealogy 
of the principal families in Israel, beginning with Adam 
and continuing to the Babylonian exile, with many histor- 
ical notes not found elsewhere in the Bible. 

1 Chronicles ix. The families living in Jerusalem before 
its destruction, together with the offices of the various 
Levitical families, and closing with the genealogy of King 
Saul. 

1 Chronicles x. The end of King Saul according to the 
Book of Samuel 

1 Chronicles xi. to xxix. is the history of David as King 
of all Israel, according to the Book of Samuel, with many 
additions and omissions, but no contradiction of facts. 

2 Chronicles i. to ix. is the history of Solomon accord- 
ing to the Book of Kings, with many additions and omis- 
sions, and no contradiction of facts. 

2 Chronicles x. The division of the kingdom in Judah 
and Israel, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. 

2 Chronicles xi. to the end of the book narrates the his- 
tory of the Kings of Judah to 586 B. C, omitting the history 
of the prophets and the Kings of Israel, adding to the 
history of the temple and its priesthood, and closing with a 



148 Hagiography. 

brief reference to the Babylonian captivity and the edict of 
Cyrus 536 B. C. 

As the author of Kings wrote chiefly the history of Israel 
and the prophets with mere references to the Kings of 
Judah, the temple and its servants, so the author of Chron- 
icles wrote chiefly that part of history which the former 
omitted. He evinces no animosity to Israel, and even 
records of it deeds of magnanimity (2 Chron. xxv. 17-24; 
xxviii. 8-15). He accounts for his additions to the books 
of Samuel and Kings by pointing to the ancient documents 
before him in their original form as they were before the 
authors of the former historical books, the public records 
and the books and scrolls of prophets as well, to which he 
invariably refers, except in the historical notes contained 
in the genealogies (chapter i.-viii). This part of the book, 
however, is ascribed to Ezra, and must be considered sepa- 
rately. That his additions are historically correct is proved 
by his story of King Manassah's captivity in Babylon,* 
which is omitted in Kings, and was found noticed in the 
Babylonian inscriptions. 

36. Characteristic of Chronicles' additions to Samuel and 
Kings is : 

(a) The author's endeavors to rouse patriotism in the 
hearts of his people, encouraging the exiles to return to 
Palestine, and the returned to be faithful and hopeful in 
their work of reconstruction. In this particular point he 
re-echoes the prophecies of Jeremiah (xxx. and xxxi.), and 
he makes mention of him (2 Chron. xxxv. 25) and of his 
prophecies (ibid, xxxvi. 21, 22). He re-echoes also the 
prophecies of Ezekiel (xxxvi. and xxxvii. especially) and 
does not mention him nor Daniel, who must have flourished 
prior to the issue of the edict of Cyrus, with reference to 
which Chronicles closes. This omission only proves that 
its author writing from existing written records and books 
only, to which he always refers, had no knowledge of the 

* See Schrader's " Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testa- 
ment," page 366. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 149 

books of Daniel and Ezekiel, as in the case of the latter the 
Talmudical record maintains, to have been compiled and 
edited by the men of the Great Synod. 

(6) The center and symbol of this patriotism, faith and 
hope is in the temple on Mount Moriah, its cult, rites, 
priesthood, builders and supporters. He glorifies David 
and Solomon, the builders of the temple, by numerous 
additions, and also by characteristic omission of incidents 
which mar their glory; as the story of Uriah and Bath 
Sheba, the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba, his conduct 
toward Saul and his descendants in the case of David ; 
and the idolatry favored by Solomon, the rebellions occur- 
ring in his days, the prophecies of Ahiah, the Shilonite, in 
the case of Solomon. He is less partial and more severe 
on the dynasty, except those kings who did something for 
the temple, the promulgation of the Thorah among the peo- 
ple, or the glorification of priests and Levites. He narrates 
the faults and shortcomings also of the best kings, like 
Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jotham and Hezekiah. 

(c) About the priesthood and the temple service the 
Chronist's additions are most profuse in his accounts of 
the organizations of the priests and Levites, the psalm- 
ody, the musical instruments, the musicians and singers, 
especially of the ancient families of Asaph, Heiman and 
Ethan. He pays much less attention to the sacrifices and, 
the priests than he does to music, song and psalmody. 
The Levites occupy the foreground in all his additions to 
the books of Samuel and Kings. 

This entitles us to the conclusion that the Chronist had 
three main objects in view, viz : to produce a detailed his- 
tory of the kings ; to glorify the temple as the center of 
Israel's pride and patriotism ; and to enhance and beautify 
the temple service by the reintroduction of Davidian psalm- 
ody and orchestras, Levitical choruses, statety guards and 
ministers ; all of which disappeared among the last of the 
prophets from their speeches, especially in Ezekiel's vision 
of the future temple, and had no prominent place in the 
earlier prophets' writings. The fort of this historian is in 



150 Hagiography. 

urging this reform, this addition to the sacrificial polity, 
and to prove from the documents at his command that this 
psalmody, orchestras and choruses, always were the most 
important part of the temple service, and also prior to that 
in the time of David and Samuel. The decline of the tem- 
ple service at different times, especially after the reign of 
Jehoshaphat and later on after Hezekiah, was chiefly in the 
reduction and neglect of the poetical and musical depart- 
ments, and the concentration of all piety and worship in 
the sacrificial rites, as is evident from the objections urged 
by prophets and psalmists against the sacrifices. 

37. The diction of the Chronist is a clear prose without 
any attempt at ornamentation, the popular style of the 
narrative in his days. So the people in the author s time 
spoke and wrote. In doctrine and historical data he is in 
perfect harmony with all the other books of the Bible. 
His peculiarities consist of the following points : 

(a) The Aramaic forms in grammar, phraseology, terms, 
names of persons, places and things, use of adverbs and 
prepositions, the addition of letters in the middle of a name, 
changing the Hebrew Hai (|f) into the Aramaic Aleph at 
the end of a word, transposing the Yeho (W) from the 
beginning of a name to its end or changing into El, trans- 
literating, abbreviating or replacing letters by others similar 
in sound then and there, are chief characteristics of Chroni- 
cles, much more so than of any other book of the Bible. 

(b) New nouns and verbs derived from Hebrew or also 
Aramaic roots abound in this book. 

(c) The silent or Hebrew vowel letters *1J1 Hai, Vav, Yud, 
are frequently added in words, in which in older books they 
are omitted. Many of the Keri and Kethib marked in mar- 
ginal notes of Samuel and Kings are replaced by the 
correct Keri in the text ; and a number of obscure or incor- 
rect passages in those books are corrected in Chronicles. 

Point c shows that Chronicles was written later than the 
books of Samuel and Kings, and even then none dared 
make any correction, any kind of change in those ancient 
books. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 151 

Points a and b prove that Chronicles was written where 
and when the people's language had been Aramized to a 
large extent, and the correct pronunciation of Hebrew 
words, even popular names like that of David required the 
assistance of vowel letters. 

This could have been the case only in Babylon among 
the exiles, or very shortly after their return to Palestine. 
After their return they rapidly improved in the Hebrew 
language, as is evident not only from the books and psalms 
written then, but also from the notes of Ezra and Nehemiah 
and the speeches of the prophet Haggai, which were certainly 
addressed to the general public. The complaint of Nehe- 
miah (xiii. 24) that the children of alien mothers did not 
know how to speak Hebrew, only proves that all others could 
and did speak the Hebrew well. Chronicles must have been 
written before Ezra and Nehemiah came to Palestine, or if 
by Ezra, which the Talmudical tradition maintains not, he 
certainly wrote it in the earlier days of his life in Babylon. 
There is nothing in the body of the book, i. e., from 1 Chroni- 
cles x. to the end of 2 Chronicles, which points to any time 
later than Zerubabel's return to Palestine ; but there are in 
the first part (i. to ix.) traces of a later time, which must be 
considered. 

38. The nine chapters in the beginning of Chronicles are 
ascribed to Ezra in the Talmudical tradition. In the main 
they are transcripts from genealogies recorded in Penta- 
teuch, Joshua, Samuel and Kings, to which are added 
genealogies especially of the tribes of Judah, Levy, Benja- 
min, the transjordanic tribes, with short notices on the 
tribes of Ephraim, Simeon and Dan, all of which was com- 
piled from works no longer extant, to establish the claims 
of those families to purity of blood and right of possession in 
their different districts and towns, founded originally by 
their ancestors. The reason for this imperfect record — only 
a small number of families and founders of towns are men- 
tioned — is obvious. Ezra's work was intended to establish 
the legal claims of such families that either had never left 
(not all members thereof did) their original possessions 



152 Hagiography. 

in Palestine, or had returned from the exile prior to or 
cotemporary with Ezra (1 Chronicle3 iv. 41-43 and v. 16- 
22). Chapter vi. is an ancient document, which may have 
been written in the time of King David or Solomon, if it 
begins v. 27 as maintained in the Septuagint. It was placed 
here to give prominence to the purely Levitical families, 
especially of Heiman and Asaf, and the priestly line from 
Phineas, their titles to certain towns and districts, which 
had been deserted by some of them already in the time of 
Jeroboam (2 Chronicles xi. 14), and many more of them 
in course of time abandoned their vocation and neglected 
their genealogies (Ezekiel xliv. 9-24; Ezra ii. 59-63). 
Chapter ix. is a record of families that lived in Jerusalem 
prior to the exile, and Nehemiah xi. reports the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem after their return from the exile. Only one 
passage in 1 Chronicles iii. 19-24 is pointed out to prove 
that it must have been written after Ezra, and that is a 
mistake. We find there the genealogy of Zerubabel, the 
lineal descendant of the Davidian kings, by Pedaiah, son 
of Shealthiel, son of King Jehoiachin, or Jechoniah. Then 
verses 19 and 20 are given the eight children of Zerubabel. 
Verse 21 are given the names of two grandsons of Zerubabel, 
and four side families of the Davidian house, and again 
three generations of one of these families (Shechaniah's). 
Without any good reason these four families are taken as 
descendants of Zerubabel, and they with their descendants, 
and following the descendants of Zerubabel would make 
seven generations and bring the author of this passage to 
200 years after Zerubabel, about 300 B. C, while in fact Ezra 
and Nehemiah flourished in the third generation of Zeru- 
babel (Nehemiah iii. 4; vi. 18, 30). There is no cause to 
gainsay the Talmudical tradition that Ezra wrote the Book 
of Genealogies to himself ij "T^. Nor can there be any 
doubt he wrote from authentic written sources, old official 
records lost to us. This is evident from the historical 
notices reaching as far back as to the sons of Ephraim and 
Benjamin in the land of Goshen (1 Chronicles vi. 21-28; 
viii. 13) ; Jabez and the city of scribes in the early days of 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 153 

the Judges (ibid. ii. 55; iv. 9) ; one of the house of Kaleb, 
who had for a wife Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh (ibid, 
iv. 18) ; the exploits of the sons of Simeon before and 
during the life-time of King Hezekiah (ibid. iv. 39-42) ; the 
exploits, of the Reubenites in the time of King Saul (ibid. 
v. 6, 19) ; the inhabitants of Gilead had been counted and 
registered in the time of King Jotham and Joroboam II. 
(ibid. v. 17) ; that a granddaughter of Ephraim, Shearah, 
built three towns (ibid. vi. 24) ; of all of which we have no 
notice in any other book. The author tells us (ibid. ix. 1) 
that all Israel had been carefully registered in the book of 
the Kings of Israel and of Judah, before they were exiled 
to Babylonia, which tells us one of his sources, and also the 
reason for not going into any further details. 
39. We have in fact before us four books : 

(a) The book of Chronicles proper from 1 Chronicles x. 
to the end of 2 Chronicles, written in Babylonia or very 
shortly after the return from the exile, written by a reform- 
atory prophet or Levite in that period about 500 B. C. 

(b) The nine chapters of genealogy, written by Ezra 
before his return to Palestine about 460 B. C. 

(c) The documentary history of Zerubabel and his time 
with the arrival of Ezra in Palestine, written about 457 B. C, 
now Ezra i.-vi. 

(d) The notes of Ezra and Nehemiah, written by them- 
selves between 458 and 423 B. C, compiled in one book, the 
main book of Ezra and Nehemiah about 360 B. C. 

The Men of the Great Synod connected these four books 
into Chronicles and Ezra in chronological order. 

The difficulties in these books are the extravagant num- 
bers, which occur frequently, and the change of names for 
the same persons, for which it is easier to account, but there 
is none in the narrative except 2 Chronicles xxii., where it 
is stated that King Ahaziah was forty-two years old on 
mounting the throne of Judah as immediate successor of 
his father, Jehoram, of whom it is stated three verses before 
that he was forty years old when he died. This is evidently 
a mistake, not made by the author, but by some transcriber 



154 Hagiography. 

who mistook the kaf (20) for a mem (40) without seeing 
that in 2 Kings Ahaziah is said to have been twenty-two 
years old, and almost the whole account in 2 Kings viii. 26 
is literally copied in Chronicles with the addition of " the 
youngest son " of Joram. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

THE traditions of the Hebrew people and documentary- 
evidence before us preclude the theory of that school of 
modern criticism which places the Pentateuch at or near 
the close of the prophetical millenium, as the product of 
historical development. Prior to Abraham Ibn Ezra, in 
the twelfth century, none expressed any doubt that Moses 
was the author of the entire book, excepting only the clos- 
ing passage of Deuteronomy, which some rabbis in the Tal- 
mud ascribe to Joshua ; and he merely suggests that a few 
historical notes must be of later origin than the body of the 
book. They may have been added by transcribers or copy- 
ists as marginal notes first, which were then amalgamated 
with the text. After him some other passages of the same 
kind were pointed out — one by Moses Nachmanides — but 
neither of them changed the traditional belief in the authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch, so that this very day the minister, 
taking out the Scroll of the Law from the ark during divine 
service, tells his congregation : " This is the Thorah which 
Moses put before the children of Israel." The exceptions 
are but few and recent. The entire post-biblical literature, 
both the apocryphal and rabbinical, reaching in some of its 
parts as far back as to the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and 
down to the sixth Christian century, records the universal 
existence of this tradition in Israel, independent of the 
same records in the Greco-Judaic and the early Christian 
literature. 

2. The documentary evidence is either direct or indirect. 
The direct evidence is the following : 

(a) The statement in the Pentateuch : Genesis v. 1, the 
Sepher Tholedoth Adam is noticed ; and Sepher signifies a 



156 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

book, a something written by somebody. Tholedoth is usu- 
ally rendered " genealogies," but it signifies also the birth 
of events, the narration of facts,* so that the narrative 
of every prominent progenitor begins with the same words, 
Eleh Tholedoth, also without speaking of descendency, 
as in xxv. 19 and xxxvii. 2 There can be no doubt 
that the author of Genesis intended to inform us that he 
had before him written records of genealogies and events, 
which he adopted, or adapted. Exodus xvii. 14, we are in- 
formed that Moses began to write the Book of the Wars of 
Jehovah (see above Chapter II., p. 28). Ibid. xxiv. 12 and 
xxxiv. 1 we are told that God wrote for Moses the inscriptions 
on the two tablets of stone, also Thorah and commandment. 
Ibid. xxiv. 4 and xxxiv., we are informed that Moses wrote 
the Book of the Covenant and a special copy of the Deca- 
logue. From Numbers xi. 26 we learn that the names of 
seventy-two elders were written down, who were most likely 
the heads of tribes and the heads of family groups men- 
tioned by name elsewhere in Numbers. Then writing is 
mentioned again, xvi. 17-18. Ibid, xxxiii. 2 we are told ex- 
pressly that Moses wrote the book, or scroll, of the " So- 
journs," Eleh Massei, which, it appears from the context, 
contained also the history of the exodus and the events 
which occurred in the wilderness. The practice of writing 
as a religious duty is commanded not only to the priest 
(Numbers v. 23), to the presumptive king (Deuteronomy 
xvii. 18), to the leaders of the people crossing the Jordan 
ibid, xxvii. 3-8) and to the Judges (ibid. xxiv. 1), but also 
to every occupant of any house (ibid. vi. 9 and xi. 20)- 
Then it is noticed again that God wrote the inscriptions 
on the two tables of stone (ibid. x. 2-4) ; that Moses has 
commanded "to read" this Thorah publicly at stated times 
(ibid. xxxi. 11) ; that he wrote Deuteronomy and delivered it 
to the priests and all the elders of the people (ibid. xxxi. 9- 
24) ; and that he wrote another Book of the Thorah, which 
he delivered to the Levites, the bearers of the ark of the 

* Genesis vi. 9; ix. 1 ; xi. 10; xxv. 12-19; xxxvi. 1 ; xxxvii. 2. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 157 

covenant, to be placed as a testimony at the side of the ark 
(ibid, verse 25). Then again we are informed (ibid, verses 
19 and 21) that Moses began also to write the Book of 
Jashar (see above Chapter II., p. 28), and commanded the 
people to copy and commit to memory his last song. 
These direct statements of facts can not legitimately be 
explained away as metaphoric or symbolic language. They 
can not be disposed of as interpolations, as they are not in 
contradiction with the known origin of alphabetical writing 
and literature among the Shemites of Asia or Africa. In 
order to bring the Pentateuch down to post-prophetical 
times, or any time after Moses, all these and many more 
passages must be declared fraudulent interpolations, will- 
ful deceptions, which is certainly an illegitimate verdict in 
this case, when the entire book treats on the loftiest ideals 
of humanity and spirituality, without any selfish motive or 
any attempt in favor of any person, community or nation, 
and without any contradiction to reason, or the experience 
of mankind. This excludes every possible motive of fraud 
and willful deception. All that can be derived from these 
various statements against the authenticity of the Penta- 
teuch is that the repetition of these statements in those par- 
ticular places of the book may prove that not all in that 
book was written by Moses ; but also this seems to conflict 
with Deuteronomy xxxi. 25, and it would only remain to be 
proved that the entire Pentateuch as now before us is of 
Mosaic origin. 

(b) The word " Thorah," with prefixes or suffixes, or with 
Jehovah, Elohim or Moses connected with it, occurs in the 
Bible no less than two hundred and forty-six times, as every 
reader can see in any Hebrew concordance. The frequent 
recurrence of this word in the historical books (except in 
Judges and Samuel), in Prophets from Amos to Malachi, 
in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, throughout the entire Biblical 
literature, although in some instances it may not refer to 
the written Thorah, certainly proves that something real and 
authoritative must have always existed, generally known 
as " Thorah," so that prophets and psalmists could in some 



158 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

instances call also their own teachings Thorah. Recurring 
some fifty times with the definite article (J"j) in hat-Thora, 
bat-Thorah and kat- Thorah, it must evidently refer to a 
reality, and not to the mere preaching of this or that 
prophet. Appearing with the word Sepher, " book," or ka- 
kathub,"a,s it is written," before it, we know that it is a book 
written. Again, the term Thorah appearing in connection 
with Mitzvah, " commandment," or Chukkim, " statutes," or 
Mishpatim, " ordinances," we know it is a book in which 
also commandments, statutes and ordinances occur. If we 
then find this written book qualified as the Thorah of Jeho- 
vah, the Thorah of Elohim and the Thorah of Moses, we 
know that this term refers to a well-known book which con- 
tains also commandments, statutes and ordinances, which 
according to the records was always known and believed to 
be of God and written by Moses. That the word Thorah 
appears in Holy Writ in all the connections noticed is evi- 
dent from any Hebrew concordance. If in any special case 
the word Thorah refers to the teaching of any prophet or 
psalmist, it must be proved, in every instance, after we know 
that generally it means the Thorah of Moses. 

That the authors of Judges and Samuel had no occasion 
to mention the Thorah does not invalidate the argument. 
For in the oldest piece in the book of Judges, the revelation 
on Mount Sinai is mentioned, viz. : In the song of Deborah 
(Judges v. 4, 5),* besides which there are in both these 
books frequent references to the Thorah, as shall be no- 
ticed below. In Samuel, to which belongs also the first, 
second and part of the third chapter of Kings, the Thorah 
is very explicitly mentioned (1 Kings ii. 4), to which is 
referred also in Psalms i. 2 ; xviii. 31 ; and xix. 8. Again 
the book of Joshua was written prior to Judges and Samuel 
(see Chap. III. pp. 39-41), in which the Thorah is mentioned 
too often and too explicitly to doubt its existence then ; the 

* This is taken from Deuter. xxxiii. 2. The song of Deborah has 
become the text to the ancient Davidian Shir, Psalm lxviii., where 
Judah only is added to the tribes praised by Deborah for patriotism 
and heroism. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 159 

Davidian Psalms and the Solomonic Proverbs shortly after 
the book of Samuel testify no less than Joshua to the exist- 
ence of the Thorah then ; hence the absence of the word 
Thorah in those two books could be but accidental, unless 
it be maintained that in the interim the Thorah was sus- 
pended, neglected, violated and forgotten, which does not 
gainsay the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and can not be 
sustained in the face of the facts that there are in the books 
of Judges and Samuel numerous quotations from and refer- 
ences to the Thorah, both its historical and juridical por- 
tions and its poetical tropes. 

The position, that those historical books, Psalms and 
Proverbs, were written or rewritten with fraudulent inten- 
tions during the Babylonian exile or thereafter, has been 
disposed of in the former chapters of this book. What was 
written during or close to that exile besides Ezekiel, the 
first part of Daniel, and parts of the twelve Minor Prophets, 
is the main portion of the book of Chronicles ; and this 
proves beyond any doubt that in its time the antiquity of 
the historical books was so well established that no correc- 
tions of mistakes even would be permitted in those old 
monuments. 

(c) The origin of the fundamental institutions and appa- 
ratuses, inseparable from the political and ecclesiastical 
life and the historical process of the ancient Israel, is 
described in the Thorah only; and in all other books of 
Holy Writ not even a remote intimation of the origin of 
those institutions and apparatuses can be discovered. This 
demonstrates at once the existence of the Thorah prior to 
all other books of the Bible. Such institutions are : 

A. The division and organization of the nation in thirteen 
tribes, the sons of Joseph as two tribes, each with its own 
Nassi or prince of the tribe, each tribe divided into family 
groups, and each group into natural families, two and a 
half of those tribes located east of the Jordan River, and ten 
and a half tribes west of the Jordan located in their exact 
districts to the very end of their national existence, where 
they were, when Deborah and Barak in the century after 



160 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

Joshua sang their celebrated hymn, and then this tribal 
division and location was already a matter of. history. The 
origin is noticed in the Thorah only. (Genesis xlviii. 5; 
xlix. 28; Exodus xxviii. 6-30; Numbers i. and vii. ; xxvi. 
11-65; xxxii. and xxxiv. ; Joshua xiii.-xxii. ; compare 
1 Chronicles ii. to ix.) 

B. The fundamental institution of the Seventy Elders 
with all the ideas of the federal and representative form of 
government, which, according to the unanimous testimony 
of the Bible, Josephus and the Talmud always existed in 
Israel unless momentarily suspended by some despotic 
king ; and yet there is no mention or intimation of its origin 
except in Numbers xi. and Deuter. xvii. 8 ; yet they are 
there in Joshua xiv. ; Judges xxi, ; 1 Samuel viii. 4 ; 2 
Samuel iii. 17 and v. 3 ; 1 Kings viii. 3 ; at every import- 
ant national event down to the prophet Jeremiah's time. 

C. The continuous existence of prophets from Moses to 
Nehemiah for one thousand years (see Chapter IV., p. 61) 
with precisely the same pretensions of being the messen- 
gers and mouthpieces of the same God, with the same 
religious principles and ethical doctrine, the very same 
system of righteousness which the Thorah prescribes and 
defines, without yielding or even inclining at any time 
to any foreign doctrine and without advancing or even 
intimating anywhere that any one of them taught any doc- 
trine, principle or law not known before to the Hebrews ; 
so that the Talmud could maintain that forty-eight prophets 
and seven prophetesses prophesied, and they added naught 
and took naught away from what is written in the Thorah. 
(Meguillah 14a.) If this God-idea, these principles and 
doctrines, this particular system of righteousness had not 
been established authoritatively before the very first as 
before the last of these prophets, their unanimity would 
have been a matter of impossibility, as the history of 
Grecian philosophy proves. 

D. The sameness of the polity with the same Levitical 
priests, upon the Bamoth or heights, as prescribed by Moses 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 161 

(Exodus xx. 19, 23) and in the national sanctuary* (Num- 
bers xxviii.) in Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon and Jerusalemf from 
the days of Joshua nearly fifteen hundred years, without 
any intimation anywhere or of any one having introduced or 
changed the same — points undeniably to an authoritative 
Thorah prior to Joshua. 

E. The Ark of the Covenant (pIN), containing the two 
tables of stone, the " Testimony" (HYl^), covered with the 
golden lid and the two cherubim, (mi£3) was there and 
is noticed in the Biblical books at all times from Joshua to 
Jeremiah ; and yet outside of the Thorah the origin of this 
historical monument, this very heart and soul of the Mosaic 
dispensation, doctrine and law, is noticed nowhere by state- 
ment or intimation. No less than one hundred and forty- 
five times the Ark of the Covenant is expressly noticed after 
the Pentateuch in the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 

*Moses evidently permits the sacrificing upon Bamoth or altars 
of earth or rough stone upon heights, not in the wilderness but in 
the land of Canaan (Exodus xx. 20-23). This passage is further 
expounded in Deuteronomy xii. where *^tD3t? 1J1X2 signifies in 
any one of thy tribes or wherever ,the prophet will point out the 
place, that God will cause his name to be mentioned. Yet in after 
times there was a continual difference between the prophets who 
opposed the Bamoth and the kings and people who sustained them. 
The law was undoubtedly there. This is evident from 2 Kings v. 
17, where it is reported that the Syrian captain, Naaman, being con- 
verted to worship Jehovah, asked for earth to take along to his 
country, to build of it an altar to Jehovah. It seems that then the 
letter of the law in Exodus, verse 21, was understood literally that 
the earth for the altar must be from Palestinean soil. Being per- 
mitted by the law and having become universal custom, the people 
and also the most pious kings clung to it (See 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 
17). Having become in many instances pagan altars the prophets 
opposed the Bamoth, but never succeeded in overcoming the prac- 
tice, because the law permitted it. Had the Thorah been written 
or revised at a late date by any of the prophets this passage in 
Exodus must necessarily have been omitted together with Deuter- 
onomy xii. 

t The sanctuary of Shiloh, with the uninterrupted continuation 
of the same sacrificial polity, can not be doubted. It is mentioned 



> 



162 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

Kings, Chronicles and Jeremiah, in connection with histori- 
cal events and always as a reality, being actually there when 
such event or events occurred, as may be seen in any He- 
brew concordance. It is described as the "Ark of the Cove- 
nant," the "Ark of Jehovah," the " Ark of Elohim," the "Ark 
of the Covenant of Jehovah," the "Ark of the Covenant of 
Elohim," the "Ark of the God of Israel," and the "Ark of 
the Covenant of Jehovah Zabaoth," with the same Baddim, 
or two bars in the rings on its two sides, and containing the 
same two tables of stone in the time of King Solomon when 
it was placed into the sanctum sanctorum of the temple, 
where it certainly remained unchanged, the same until 
Jeremiah, prior to the destruction of the temple, hid it, 
together with the golden altar and the Mosaic tabernacle in 
a cave on Mount Nebo (2 Maccabees ii. 4-6) ; or, as the Tal- 
mud and Maimonides have it, it was hid under the temple 
in a secret chamber by King Joshiah (See Art. "Aron " in 
Pachad Yitzchak)* 

3. The indirect evidence to the authenticity of the Penta- 
teuch consists of the following points : 

(a) The laws and institutions on which critics agree that 

first as the presumptive capital of Canaan (Genesis xlix. 10), then 
as the capital of Canaan and the place of the national sanctuary 
(Joshua xviii. 1; xix. 51), and is that yet in the time of Phineas 
(Judges xxi. 19). It is mentioned again as such in 1 Samuel ; then 
in Psalms lxxviii. 60, and in Jeremiah vii. 12-14, where its de- 
struction is noticed. It was situated in Ephraim (Joshua xvi. 6). 
In the Talmud (Sebachim) the tradition is recorded that the sanc- 
tuary at Shiloh consisted of a stone structure, on the top of which 
the tabernacle of Moses was pitched. The tabernacle itself was 
not destroyed; it was tranf erred from Shiloh to Nob ( ?) and then 
to Gibeon (1 Chronicles xvi. 37-42) and finally by Solomon to Jeru- 
salem (2 Chronicles v. 5 ; 2 Kings viii. 4). Those critics who must 
prove the non-existence of any Thorah at the start of Israel 
in Canaan, make it easy for themselves by simply denying all 
this documentary testimony concerning Shiloh and the Mosaic 
tabernacle. 

* Most objectionable in this connection is the assumption of some 
radical critics, that the "Ark" was the god or idol worshiped by 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 163 

they were adopted into the Pentateuch from the Egyptians, 
as is also the ease with the Egyptian words and names in 
the Book, and the fact that its author and the people to 
whom he spoke knew more of Egypt than of Canaan. These 
points being sufficiently discussed, require no further sup- 
port ; it is for the negative side to show how this could have 
been the case if the book had been written after the time of 
Moses. In connection therewith it must be borne in mind 
that there is no trace in the Pentateuch of Zoroasterism, 
which we know also from Isaiah (xlv. 6, 7) that it existed 
in his time ; no knowledge of the city of Babylon, no more 
than that one of the four provinces over which Nimrod 
reigned in the land of Shinear was called Babel (Genesis x. 
10 and xi. 2)* no knowledge of a land called Assyria or a 
capital called Nineveh, Ashshur is yet the name of a man 
and Resen is the " Great City " (Genesis x. 11, 12), not even 
in the time of Abraham (ibid, xiv.), and the Ashshur in the 
poem of Balaam (Numbers xxiv.) seems yet to be taken as 
the name of a man and not of a country. The Pentateuch 
betrays no knowledge of any country except Egypt and 

the ancient Hebrews, to which others add that the stones kept 
therein were those gods or idols, in support of which the Scriptural 
texts offer no more argument than reason and experience offer in 
support of the assumption that human beings at any time wor- 
shiped stock, stone, or any other object of nature, box, idol, image, 
or any other work of art, otherwise than a3 presentations of ideas 
or conceptions of divinity preceding the objects of nature or the 
works of art adopted to represent those previous ideas or concep- 
tions. Only when the original ideas were forgotten, thoughtless 
multitudes continued to worship those objects. It is an outrage on 
human nature to reverse the order and entirely contrary to experi- 
ence. The ark and the tablets, if they were ever worshiped in Is- 
rael, must necessarily first have represented ideas of divinity, 
which could but be the inscriptions on those stones and the charac- 
ter of that ark as testimony of the covenant. Those radical critics, 
however, admit the existence of the ark and tablets at all times 
after Moses ; hence their assumption does not invalidate our argu- 
ment in this connection. 

* Also in Joshua vii. 21 we find the Adereth Shinear. 



164 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

Arabia. It has not even the city of Tyre, and besides 
Damascus and Haran in Mesopotamia, none in Syria. In 
the East it knows only of Ur of the Chaldeans. 

(6) There are in the Pentateuch a number of laws and 
narrations which could have been written only during the 
sojourn of Israel in the wilderness prior to taking possession 
of the land of Canaan ; as the laws concerning the Year of 
Jubilee and the Year of Release (Leviticus xxv.). In no 
land and among no people in possession of the soil such 
laws of possession could be ordained with any prospect of 
success. They could be prospective only and ordained be- 
fore the Israelites possessed the land of Canaan, as condi- 
tions sine qua non under which God gives them possession 
of the land (Leviticus xxvi. 33-35, 43). It is evident that 
the law of possession, as ordained in Moses, existed among 
the Israelites at all times (Ruth i. 9 to ii. 10; Jeremiah 
xxxii. 1-12 ; xxxiv. 1-27 ; Ezekiel xlvi. 17), so that not even 
wicked Ahab dared to violate it (2 Kings xxi.); and when 
the exiles returned from Babylon, the family groups were 
carefully noticed to return each to its own. It is not cer- 
tain that the Year of Jubilee was enforced at any time ; ^so 
much the more it must have been a prospective legislation, 
which, like many others of the same kind, were never reduced 
to practice. If it had been enacted at any time in Canaan 
it must have left a trace of its origin.* 

(c) Among other chapters of Leviticus and Numbers 

*Jeremiah xxxiv. gives us to understand that he refers to the 
Thorah. He uses the terms *£>En and nil for free and freedom, 
exactly like Moses in Exodus and Leviticus, which none after him 
had used except Jeremiah, and connects them with the same verbs 
as Moses did ^sn rhvh "im KIpS In verse 14 he begins with the 
words of Moses in Deuteronomy (xv. 1), and continues with the 
Mosaic words in (Exodus xxi. 27), and like Moses he places the 
verb "DD* yimmocher in the passive voice, showing that he knows 
and refers to all the laws of Moses on this subject, and refers only 
to persons that had been sold as a punishment for crimes com- 
mitted, as Exodus xxii. 2, to whom alone Exodus xxi. 2 refers. No 
other bondsman went out free with the seventh year of his servi- 
tude unless such was his special compact. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 165 

which refer especially to the sojourn in the wilder- 
ness, Leviticus xvii. contains the plainest evidence of 
having been written there, and even in the beginning of 
that period, soon after the tabernacle had been erected, 
which applies also to chapters xviii.-xx., wherein the pecu- 
liarity of addressing the commandments to WX 2£>*X 
or C^N recurs frequently.* These are special laws ex- 
pressed in concrete cases, without abstraction of gen- 
eral laws, as in Exodus xxi. and xxii., which is cer- 
tainly the form of primitive legislation. Besides, this chap- 
ter closes thus : "And every person that eateth that which 
hath died of itself, or that which was torn by beasts, be this 
one born in your own country, or a stranger, shall both 
wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be 
unclean until the evening, when he shall be clean. But 
if he wash (them) not, nor bathe his flesh, then shall 
he bear his iniquity." This was certainly written prior to 
Leviticus xi., where the eating, touching or carrying any 
unclean carcass is prohibited with much more emphasis 
than prescribing for the transgressor no other punishment 
or means of atonement than washing his body and gar- 
ments, so that the sin is not in eating the forbidden food, but 
in not washing if one ate it. This passage can only be a con- 
tinuation of Exodus xxii. 30, which it supplements. The 
whole of this chapter refers to matters in the wilderness and 
at that special time. There is no reason imaginable why it 
should have been written at any other time. This is also 
evident from Deuteronomy xii. 15, 16, 20-23. It prohibits 
the killing of sheep, goats or cattle otherwise than at the 
altar, where the blood is to be sprinkled and part of the fat 
to be burned, for which the reason is given in verse 7, " that 
they make no sacrifices to the Se'irim" the demons of the 
wilderness, besides which there was also an economical 
reason not stated in the text, all referring to the sojourn in 
the wilderness. Then in verse 13 the exception to this rule 
is stated in regard to game, which may be freely used for 

*Also in Numbers v. 6 to vi. 31 and ix. 9-18. 



166 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

food, but the blood must be covered with dust or ashes. 
This again, was only for the wilderness, a sanitary measure, 
and is not repeated in Deuteronomy xii. 16, 24, because it 
referred to the wilderness only. No motive is imaginable 
that could have induced any author, after or before Moses, 
to write this chapter xvii. of Leviticus. The same is the 
case with the story of the golden calf, made in the wil- 
derness, in which Aaron is placed in so unfavorable a light 
(Deut. ix. 20), to which Leviticus xvii. evidently refers. It 
was certainly not written when the descendants of Aaron 
were the highest aristocracy of the nation, as was always 
the case, at least from and after the time of King Solomon. 
The same seems to be the case with all Pentateuchal pas- 
sages referring to the conquest of Canaan and the subjuga- 
tion or even extermination of the aborigines, when they had 
ceased to exist, and none disputed the right and claim of 
the Israelites to their land;* on the contrary, those pas- 
sages sound so harshly and so contrary to the Mosaic prin- 
ciple of humanism that no author of a later date would 
have written them, and if one had done so, no compiler 
would have inserted them in the Thorah. 

There are also a number, especially of penal laws, in the 
Pentateuch which, if tested by the general principles and 
standard of Pentateuchal ethics, could have been intended 
for Israel's sojourn in the wilderness only. To this class 
might be taken the thirty-six cases in the Thorah, the com- 
mission (in two cases omission) of which to be punished 
with Karath f " cut off " (Mishna Kerithuth I. ) , the transgressor 

*The passage in Ezra ix. 1 does not say that those nationalities 
existed in his time ; it only tells that in taking foreign women for 
wives, they did DJTTOJjrD " like their abominations " which their 
ancestors did in marrying the daughters of those nations. The 
Di"6 in verse 2, refers to mVlK *&$ in verse one. Their prac- 
tice now, it says, was as abominable as it was in former days, 
when Hebrews took in marriage the daughters of other nations, 
referring to historical data, as is evident according to the Talmud 
in regard to Ammonites and Moabites and according to the Law as 
regards the Egyptians, mentioned in Ezra. 



Pronaos to Holy Whit. 167 

to be cut off, and it is said nowhere from what he is to be cut 
off. The rabbinical expounders, therefore, were in doubt as 
to what to make of this kind of punishment, and some made 
of it a divine punishment executed by the Almighty in time 
or eternity.* This esoteric conception of the term Karath is 
not its primary meaning. It could but be intended to convey 
the idea to cut off from the tribe or from the main body. 
This was a severe punishment in the wilderness only, and 
was inflicted on transgressors among many other tribes 
similarly located. The same seems to be the case with the 
punishment of death for the Sabbath-breaker (Exodus xxxi. 
13-17 ; Numbers xv. 32-36) and all penalties of death in 
Leviticus xx., all of which are justifiable from the ethical 
standpoint of Moses, as temporary measures in the wilder- 
ness only, where such heroic and rigorous laws were neces- 
sary, to break down the pagan practices, to maintain moral 
purity among the hundred thousands of men and women 
encamped in close approximation in the heart of a wide 
waste, and to introduce effectually the laws, then new, like 
the Sabbath, the sexual relations and the anti-pagan prac- 
tices. As measures in the wilderness, they are harsh and 
rigorous, but justifiable by prevailing circumstances; as 
laws enacted at any time in the land of Israel, they are 
unjustifiable, almost unthinkable in connection with the 
Mosaic standard of ethics. These must be legislations from 
and for the wilderness, and are, therefore, not repeated in 
Deuteronomy, nor by prophets, psalmists or chronographers. 
(d) The body of doctrine, the institutions connected 
therewith and the conception of righteousness as advanced 
in the Pentateuch re-echo from all parts of the Bible from 
first chapter of Josuha to the last of Chronicles. It is not 
only the same Jehovah-Elohim, but also the same Creator, 
Preserver and Governor of the world, the same sole Sover- 
eign of heaven and earth, and in his relations to man the same 
Holy God of mercy, benevolence, long suffering and of abso- 

*See Siphri to Numbers xv. 30, 31, and Talmud Sanhedrin 99 and 
Tar gum Yeruihalmi. 



168 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

lute grace and truth, who preserves and extends the good and 
the true to the thousandth generation and permits evil to 
exist only to the fourth, and forgives iniquity, sin and trans- 
gression. So God is revealed from the summit of Sinai, so 
Moses defines and proclaims Jehovah (Exodus xx. 5 ; xxxiv. 
6-7 ; Numbers xiv. 17-20 ; Deuter. x. 17 ; iv. 35, 39 ; vii. 9 ; 
xxxii. 3, 4). So did David praise him in Psalms ciii. and many 
other psalms ; so God's name and glory resounds and re- 
echoes in the speeches of all prophets, the songs and hymns 
of all psalmists and the narrators of every episode of 
Israel's history. And yet none of those inspired men main- 
tains that God revealed himself to him in this full majesty 
of his glory ; none added any new idea to this sublime 
cognition of the Most High, and none was able up to this 
day to add to it. The same is the case with the lofty con- 
ception of human nature which Moses proclaims (Gene- 
sis i.) and David sings in inspired lays (Psalms viii.) ; the 
threefold covenant, viz., with man (Genesis ix. 8-17), with 
Abraham (ibid, xvii.) and with Israel (Exodus xix. and 
xxiv.), which re-echoes so from all books of the Bible that 
the term Berith, " covenant," recurs no less than two hundred 
and fifty times, and none maintains that he advanced this 
doctrine, or added anything to it. The same is the case with 
the institutions connected with it, viz., circumcision, Sab- 
bath, New Moon, the three high feasts, the duty of right- 
eousness, holiness and worship. All this we find present in 
the mind of every author that contributed to the collection 
called Holy Writ, without any claim to originality in all 
these matters, and these taken together make the essentiality 
of Israel's religion ; hence the outspoken confession that the 
Thorah of Moses preceded all other books and parts of books. 
(e) The main historical data narrated in the Pentateuch 
also recur in the scriptural records. There is none which 
alludes not to the fact that the Hebrews were the descend- 
ants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Also that Jacob went to 
Aram, served Laban for his daughter, and was then called 
Israel, is mentioned by the prophet Hosea (xii.). The fact 
of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, the exodus and remaining forty 



Peonaos to Holy Weit. 169 

years in the wilderness re-echoes from most all books, as 
also the story of Baal Peor (Numbers xxv.), and of Balak 
and Balaam (ibid, xxiii. and xxiv.), especially from Hosea 
(xi. 1 ; xii. 10; xiii. 4), Amos (ii. 10)* and Micah (v. 1-5), 
and mentions especially Moses, Aaron and Miriam. The 
occurrences in the wilderness toward the end of Moses' life 
are re-told by Yiphthach in Judges xi. 12-28. The fact that 
Aaron was appointed a Nabi in Egypt, and afterward the 
Cohen, is referred to in 1 Samuel ii. 27, 28 by the Man of Elo- 
him.- 1 Samuel xii. it is this prophet who repeats the story 
of Jacob going to Egypt and of Moses and Aaron leading 
them out of that country. 1 Kings ii., the Thorah of Moses 
as a written book containing ordinances, commandments 
and testimonies, as also in Psalms xix., are reported, so that 
as far as facts are concerned we need go no further, although 
we might refer to many more passages, as for instance, the 
Asaph chapters (Psalms lxxviii., lxxx., lxxxi.), and espe- 
cially Psalms cxxxvi. This suffices to establish the fact 
advanced at the head of this paragraph. 

4. There are a number of arguments e silentio in support 
of the antiquity and authenticity of the Pentateuch which 
in connection with the foregoing are of considerable weight. 
Mark the following : 

(a) About eleven hundred and fifty Hebrew roots, aci no 
less new formations of words from existing roots occur in 
Prophets and Hagiography, which are not found in the 
Pentateuch. Take away the Aramaic portions in Daniel 
and Ezra, and the Pentateuch will be found to contain much 
more than one-fourth of the Hebrew of the whole Bible. 
This marks the progress of the Hebrew language after the 
five books of Moses had been written, most visible in the 
books of Isaiah, Micah, Psalms, Proverbs and Job, and 
points directly to the antiquity of the Pentateuch. 

(b) The failure of all critics not only to fix with any 
degree of certainty the time when the Pentateuch, or any 

*Amos also knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and tells it 
with the same unusual verb *]Dn") as Moses did. See Amos iv. 2. 



170 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

part thereof, was written — simply because the history of the 
Hebrew language is unknown to them — but also to discover 
any anthropological, geographical or topographical error, as 
far as Egypt, Arabia and Palestine are concerned, in the 
whole Pentateuch. This, as well as the exact location of 
places and the life-like descriptions of persons and events 
points undoubtedly to an author cotemporary with the 
events and perfectly at home in those localities. For in- 
stances of this kind we may point especially to the ad- 
dresses and songs of Moses in Deuteronomy and Exodus 
xv., and the prayer of Moses (Psalms xc. and xci.). It is 
not merely the antique form of the poetry and the concrete 
terms, it is the clearness and exactness of the contents 
which exclude any idea of a later author, especially in the 
above psalms, in which the last days of Moses in the wilder- 
ness, with all the horrors of the wilderness, the death of a 
whole generation before his mind, with a small band of sur- 
vivors approaching their end, are so vividly described. 

(c) The entire disregard in the Pentateuch to the Later 
Prophets is characteristic. No notice is taken of the un- 
favorable sentiments of prophets and psalmists to the sacri- 
ficial cults in general, to the Bamoth, the altars on the heights 
in particular, and to all the innovations proposed by the 
prophet Ezekiel. This could not be the case, if the Thorah 
had been written late in the prophetical millenium. Nor 
could those passages and penal laws pointed out above have 
been accepted in the law — in spirit so contrary to the teach- 
ings of the prophets and psalmists — if it had been revised 
and re-edited at a later date. Not even the musical reforms 
pressed so emphatically by those who returned from Baby- 
lon, as is evident from Chronicles and Ezra, were given a 
support in the law. 

(d) The absence of any fixed doctrinal formula of im- 
mortality of the soul or resurrection of the body with any 
kind of future reward and punishment is proof positive 
almost of the antiquity of the Pentateuch. The indefi- 
nite ideas of eschatological matters correspond only with 
ancient Egypt, by no means with the Zabaism or Zoroas- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 171 

terism of the East, not even with the older prophets and 
psalmists in Israel whose ideas of an immortal soul are 
much clearer and definite, as is evident from 1 Kings xvii. 
17-24 ; 2 Kings iv. 20-37 ; Psalms viii. xvi. and xlix. ; Isaiah 
xxvi. 19 further illustrated in Ezekiel xxxvii. Had the Pen- 
tateuch been written or rewritten at a later date none can 
doubt that a fixed formula of this doctrine would be in it. 

5. Last, although no less important, the direct testimony 
to the antiquity of the Pentateuch from Chronicles, Ezra 
and Malachi must be considered. The main portion of 
Chronicles, we have seen in the previous chapter, was 
written before the advent of Ezra, nearer to the Babylonian 
captivity than any other book besides the three last 
prophets. There can be no doubt that the chronist had 
before him the written Thorah of Moses, which, he states, 
existed in the time of King David (1 Chron xvi. 9) at the 
first occasion he had to refer to it. He refers again and 
again to it in the time of David (ibid. xxii. 12; xxix. 19), 
of Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 13), of Rehabeam (xii. 1), of Asa 
(xiv. 3), of Jehoshaphat, who appointed teachers to 
visit the cities of Judah with " the book of the Thorah of 
Jehovah," and they did teach it publicly (xvii. 7-9). He 
reports then again the Thorah in the time of King Hezekiah 
(xxx. 16). When he reports that "the book of the Thorah" 
was found in the sanctuary (xxxiv. 14, 15), which he further 
on calls " the book of the Covenant" (verse 30), he certainly 
could not intend to say that a new book, one unknown 
before, was discovered. No author will thus contradict his 
own statements. There is no cause to suspect the chronist 
of false reports. Still, however this may be, he proves to a 
certainty that the Pentateuch as it is existed in his time, 
was known as the Thorah of Jehovah, the book of Moses, 
and was generally believed to have existed in the same 
form at least up to the time of King David. Later on the 
prophet Malachi closes his prophecy with the same solemn 
testimony : " Remember the Thorah of Moses, my servant, 
which I commanded him at Horeb upon all Israel ordi- 
nances and statutes." There comes to all this the solemn 



172 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

testimony of Ezra, Nehemiah, the elders, priests and Levites, 
of all the people assembled in holy convocation at Jeru- 
salem, from the first to the twenty-fourth day of the 
seventh month, when the Thorah was read and expounded 
to them, and all of them acknowledged it as the genuine 
Thorah of Jehovah Elohim (Nehemiah ix. 3) given by 
Moses on Mount Sinai (verses 13 and 14 and x. 30), con- 
firmed it with two solemn affirmations, by the oath, and 
signing their names to the document to convey all this to 
posterity ; all of which is preserved in the viii. ix. and x. 
chapters of Nehemiah. All speculations, however inge- 
nious and plausible to contradict this fact, are worthless. 
In the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi and the Chronist 
the Pentateuch was generally known and firmly believed 
to be the Thorah of Jehovah, the Thorah of Moses, 
the Thorah revealed on Mount Sinai. The groundless 
hypothesis, that Ezra wrote, amended or interpolated the 
Thorah, is a forlorn hope and can not be sustained by any 
known fact. His cotemporaries solemnly swore that it is 
the Thorah of Moses and not of Ezra. The Samaritans, 
who did not accept any of the Ezra and Nehemiah re- 
forms, not even the other books of Scriptures, accepted the 
Thorah in the ancient writing. In the post -biblical litera- 
ture prior to the Talmud, Ezra is not mentioned any more, 
not even in the forty-ninth chapter of Ben Sira's book, 
where the prophets Zerubabel, Joshua and Nehemiah are 
glorified. Josephus and Philo know nothing of Ezra as 
author or lawgiver.* All this would be impossible if Ezra 
had written the Thorah or even any part thereof. Therefore 
we know from all foregoing arguments of this chapter, that 
there always was a Thorah ; a written Thorah, a Thorah of 

*A11 anybody knows of or about Ezra must be from that book or 
the traditions recorded in the Talmud, and these two only sources 
never intimate that he, in regard to the Thorah, was any more 
than a learned scribe and expounder, who in a very few instances 
filled up a defective passage, which he marked by points above the 
letters. (See Numbers Rabba 37, 24 to uS> ^y 1p: ntzh and Tikkun 
Sopherim, of which we speak in the next chapter. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 173 

Jehovah, a Thorah of Moses, prior to all other biblical 
books, that the contents of that Thorah were in doctrines 
and narratives in the main at least identical with the one 
before us ; but we know not yet their perfect identity, nor 
do we know yet when and by whom it was cast in the form 
as it is before us. We must continue the investigation. 

6. The three middle books of the Pentateuch were 
certainly not edited in the time of Kings in Israel or 
Judah. They are strenuously democratic-theocratic in all 
their provisions and narrations. No room is left to a 
king, no prerogative is given to any, no sphere for the 
exercise of the royal authority is intimated. This demo- 
cratic spirit is so clearly expressed — and this is to be 
especially remembered — that God is never called "King" 
in all the Pentateuch, nowhere before Samuel (xii. 12). Such 
a code could not have been written or edited in any country 
governed by a king. That these three books were not writ- 
ten after that time is evident from the foregoing arguments 
in this chapter. Some of the negative critics admit this, 
when they maintain that the book of the Thorah found in 
the temple by Hilkiah, the high priest, and brought to King 
Joshiah (2 Kings xxiii. ; 2 Chronicles xxxiv.) was Deuter- 
onomy, which the prophet Jeremiah forged, and in con- 
spiracy with the priest, imposed on the king as the work of 
Moses. Before arguing this point it must be taken into 
consideration that if this is so then the three middle books 
of the Pentateuch must be much older than Deuteronomy. 
There could be no reason to forge that book nine centuries 
after the death of Moses upon his name ; had he not been 
known as the redeemer, lawgiver and founder of the institu- 
tions extant in the time of Jeremiah. It can not be main- 
tained that the name also was an invention, because either it 
was used to give authority to the book, then the name must 
have been identified with this authority, or the invention 
was foolish, as historical names of high authority like Samuel, 
David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, must have been well known 
then, and any one of them would have conferred a higher 
authority upon the pseudonymous book than the unknown 



174 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

and foreign Moses. If Moses was known as the redeemer, 
lawgiver and founder of the institutions, it could not have 
been by tradition nine centuries post featum, there must have 
existed documents to this effect. These documents — the 
evidence is too overwhelming — must have been besides the 
three middle books of the Thorah, also Genesis, or such other 
documents in which the subject matter of Deuteronomy was 
contained, to which it literally refers in almost every chap- 
ter, in narration, doctrine and law.* However, there exists 
no passage and no intimation in any book of the Bible or else- 
where to justify the ungenerous and unethical hypothesis, that 
Jeremiah or any other prophet or priest in Israel committed 
literary forgery, pious fraud or impious dissimulation ; or to 
assume that Deuteronomy was the book found in the days of 
King Joshiah. The books of Kings and Chronicles were writ- 
ten undoubtedly by authors of ability, who would not con- 
tradict themselves in matters of facts in the same book. And 
yet in 2 Kings xiv. and 2 Chronicles xxv. — besides many 
other passages — the existence and authority of Deuteronomy 
is expressly acknowledged by quoting from it literally verse 
6 in Kings and verse 4 in Chronicles. Still further on, in 
Kings xvii. and Chronicles xxx. and xxxi., in the time of 
King Hezekiah, the existence and authority of the whole 

*As most striking reference of this kind compare Deuteronomy 
i. 9-18 to Exodus xviii. 26; Moses being omitted in the Deuteron- 
omy passage which closes, "And I commanded you then all the 
words which ye shall do." Compare Deuteronomy i. to iii. with 
the corresponding passages in Numbers ; also iv. 1-3 to Numbers 
xxv. 1-9 ; ibid. iv. 9-13 to Exodus xix. ; ibid, three times « "]W *"i$fcO 
in Deuteronomy v., and after verse 19 compare to Exodus xx. 15-19 ; 
ibid. Deuteronomy xiv. and Leviticus xi. ; Deuteronomy xxviii. to 
Leviticus xxvi., and so on throughout the book with numerous 
references to Genesis. The difference of expressions in the Deca- 
logue and some laws prove that Moses was the author of Deuter- 
onomy, as none else would have attempted these changes and 
emendations. The defectiveness of some laws, as in Deuteronomy 
xxiii. 1-3 points most distinctly to laws of prior existence, in this 
case Leviticus xviii. as the emendations to other laws again demon- 
strate the authorship of Moses. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 175 

Thorah is expressly acknowledged. Anyway, no fair critic 
can presume that two pages beyond the author or com- 
piler contradicts all that and meant to say there that Deuter- 
onomy or any part of the Pentateuch, then unknown, was 
produced or found in the temple. Besides Kings and 
Chronicles inform us expressly that mini! *l£JD the book 
of the Thorah, viz., the main book of the Thorah, was found 
in the temple, which in both sources is called then *l5D 
J"V*Dn " The Book of the Covenant," which we know from 
Exodus xxiv. 4-7 was the principal book written by Moses. 
There exists not the least cause to maintain that it was any 
other book except an ancient manuscript supposed, perhaps, 
to be the original book written by Moses. In hearing the 
contents of the book the king rent his garments, and sent 
to the prophetess Huldah — not to Jeremiah, who was not 
known yet as a prophet and was a very young man — to in- 
quire of the Lord as to what evil would come over the land, 
" because our fathers hearkened not to the words of this book 
to do like all that is written concerning us." This is repeated 
in clearer language in 2 Chronicles. Hence it was not a new 
book or one not known or not observed at that time, it is 
only the fathers, meaning Menasseh and Amon, who did not 
do as prescribed in the said book. The cause of the terror 
which the book struck was simply that the Book of the 
Covenant closed with Leviticus xxv. and xxvi., and the lat- 
ter chapter contains the prophecies of Moses concerning all 
the evils to befall the people breaking the covenant and de- 
serting their God and his law. To this the message of the 
prophetess Huldah refers, which is also stated extensively 
in the name of many prophets in 2 Kings xxi. 10-17, and is 
repeated in Jeremiah in most all of his messages. All this, 
no doubt, was known in the days of King Joshiah, but it 
was not believed to be the genuine prophecy of Moses. The 
ancient manuscript found in the temple proved to them that 
such was the prophecy of Moses, and this struck terror into 
the hearts and started Jeremiah on his prophetical mission 
of, " the end approaches," taken from Amos' ^pJl ND (viii. 



176 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

2), announced to Israel, " I will hasten my word to per- 
form it."* 

7. The existence and authority of the Thorah are trace- 
able up to the time of Samuel in the historical books, the old- 
est prophets, Proverbs and Psalms. In regard to the older 
prophets attention is called to the following special points : 

(a) The main events narrated in the Thorah are noticed 
in these books. Such are the origin of the Hebrew people 
and its religion from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ( Micah vii. 
20; Hosea xii. 4, 5; Amos vii. 16); the destruction of 
Sodom and Gomorrah with the same exceptional term of 
rD5nn TlDPW rD£i"!D as in Genesis xix. (Amos iv. 11 ; 
Isaiah i. 9, 10, also iii. 9 and xiii. 19) ; Israel's sojourn in 
Egypt, the redemption by Moses, Aaron and Miriam and the 
forty years in the wilderness (Amos ii. 10; iii. 1; v. 25,) 
where also the prophets and Nazirites are noticed (Hosea 
ii. 17; xi. 1; xii. 14; xiv. 5; Micah vi. 4); the story of 
Balak and Bileam (Micah vi. 6) and the location where it 
occurred; so also the story at Baal Peor (Hosea ix. 10). 

(b) The imitations and quotations from the Pentateuch. 
Such are Joel ii. 13 like Exodus xxxiv. 6; ii. 16 like Deuter- 
onomy viii. 10 ; ii. 17 ; and iv. 17 like Numbers xv. 41 w *M 
ayil^X ; Amos iii. 14 like Exodus xxxii. 34 ^pfi QV2 ; 
iv. 6-11 is an abstract of Leviticus xxvi. the phrase tffr Otf 
*? tyOB>"n changed into the refrain H# tDJ"D£> tifr); 
Hosea i. 7 *3 CnW\n) like Deuteronomy xxxii. 19 ; i. 9 
is like Deuteronomy xxvi. 16-19 ; ii. 1 is like Genesis xiii. 
16 and xxi. 17 ; v. 8 is like Numbers x. 1-10 with the identi- 
cal words of IflW, fff¥ W7 and tynm ; v. 10 is like Deut- 
eronomy xxvii. 37, with the identical ^^J J|*DD ; xii. 10 and 
xiii. 4 are literally the first verse of the Decalogue. Isaiah 
i. 2 is an imitation of Deuteronomy xxxii. 1. Besides all of 
them repeated the words of Moses (Deuteronomy xxx. 3), 

*The prophecy of Jeremiah that the Babylonian captivity would 
last seventy years, was based upon the prophecy of Moses (Leviti- 
cus xxvi. 32-34). The number seventy must be understood as the 
ordinary lifetime of a man. 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 177 

liYDt? AN ytf?R " DJT) (Joeliii. 4; Amos ix. 14; Hosea 
vi. 11.) This phrase passed into almost every book of the 
Bible. 

Hosea (iv. 15) informs us that the people also in the 
kingdom of Israel swore * 1 ^n by the Living God of Israel. 
They speak of the "Covenant" by which Israel became a 
kingdom of priests (Hosea iv. 6 ; viii. 1 ; Isaiah xxiv. 5) ; so 
Micah speaks of the grace and truth, or the love and faithful- 
ness which God has sworn to our ancestors from ancient 
days (vii. 20). They speak of the sacrificial polity, the 
altar, the priesthood, the sacrifices as ancient institutions, 
not as a form of Pagan worship (Joel i. 13; ii. 17), and 
Amos brings in connection with Chaggim " feasts," Atzerolh, 
generally rendered " feast of conclusion," which word in this 
signification occurs in the Pentateuch only. 

They make mention of VpIT) * DTlD li the Thorah of 
Jehovah and his statutes " (Amos ii. 4) ; Trf7K mm " the 
Thorah of thy Elohim," and H^H) HHD "the Covenant 
and the Thorah" (Hosea iv. 6 and viii. 1), \Trf?N mm 
" the Thorah of our Elohim " (Isaiah i. 10) in parallel with 
an -QT « The Word of Jehovah," of which he, like Micah, 
knows that the Thorah will go forth from Zion and the word 
of God from Jerusalem to all nations (ii. 3). He knows 
that the Thorah is not the Theudah or prediction (viii. 20) 
and that it consists of more than one book which stands in 
connection with Chok or statute, and Berith or covenant 
(xxiv. 5), and that his people refuse to obey the ** mm 
u The Thorah of Jehovah" (xxx. 8). He speaks of Sepher 
a book (xxix. 11, 12), and even of two kinds of Holy Writs, 
the Luach Ithom and the Sepher Chuckoh, and tells us ex- 
pressly (xxxiv. 16), "Inquire ye from the Book of Jeho- 
vah " ; hence we must conclude that the Thorah was written 
a Sepher Chuckoh. We know it was the Thorah which 
stands in connection with Berith, the covenant, which, to 
the best of our knowledge, was the Pentateuch only 

8. It seems, therefore, probable that the three middle 
books of the Pentateuch were recast in their present form 



178 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

from the Mosaic documents, by editors from the period of 
the Judges. In this period there are but two ages when 
such an important work might have been accomplished ; (1) 
from and after the conquest and occupation of Canaan by 
Joshua to the time of Deborah and Barak, which we may 
call the Phineas age; and (2) the time of Samuel and his 
immediate disciples, the first Bene Hannebiim. In regard to 
the Phineas age, we read in Joshua xxiv. 31 and Judges ii. 
7, "And Israel served God all the days of Joshua, and all 
the elders that lived long after Joshua, who had known all 
the (great) works of God, that he had done for Israel." 
This age of piety and knowledge re-echoes yet in the De- 
borah song, and it appears from there (Judges v. 6) to have 
reached into the time of Shamgar ben Anoth, the immedi- 
ate predecessor of Deborah. It was evidently a literary age 
when laws were written (ibid, verses 9 and 14) " to ennoble 
the people," and men were searching into the law to estab- 
lish justice (verse 10) and there were expert scribes in Zeb- 
ulon (verse 14). It is probable that then, even by the 
immediate disciples of Moses, like Phineas, Othniel ben 
Kenaz and their cotemporaries, the Mosaic material was 
recast for the benefit of priests and people into the more 
practical form of Exodus and Leviticus, as these two books 
contain nothing which points to a date after the Deborah 
age, and after that came the retrogression into the rude 
ages of Jephthah and Samson, arrested by Samuel and his 
disciples. The prophet Samuel, according to Psalms xcix. 
6, 7 ranks with Moses and Aaron, among those who pro- 
claimed God's name, who cried to God and he responded to 
them : "Ina pillar of cloud would he speak to them ; they 
guarded his testimonies and he gave them statutes." This 
sounds very much like placing Samuel among the law- 
givers, so that the Talmud could maintain 'jfflDW ^lDC^ 
pUfrO Ht^O THJD " Samuel equipoises Moses and Aaron." 
The next consideration is that Samuel was the author of 
the book of Judges, taken from the " Pook of the Wars of 
Jehovah," and after Judges opens a new method of histori- 
ography and a new epoch of Hebrew language and litera- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 179 

ture ; as if the old Mosaic and post-Mosaic records had been 
closed, after the material for Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges 
had been transcribed from them, new records were opened 
and continued thereafter by the prophets and the Scribes 
and Chancellors of the royal court. Besides all this, it 
appears that Judges and the first part of Samuel are in 
spirit closer to Numbers than to any other book, and several 
passages in Numbers have their counterparts in Judges, as 
for instance Judges i. 17 and Numbers x. 3-5, also Deuter- 
onomy iii. 14 ; Judges x. 3-5 ; Numbers xxx. 39-42 ; Judges 
xi. 11, 12-28, and Numbers xxxi. ; Judges xiii. 7 and Num- 
bers vi. 1-5, while none reach beyond the time of Samuel. 
The last of the Balaam's poems (Numbers xxiv. 15-24) 
bears the imprint .of Samuel, and some maintain also his 
name. There must be added to all this, that from and 
after Samuel we have before us detailed history; if at 
any time after Samuel such an important literary monu- 
ment as the Pentateuch had been erected, some notice of it 
must have been left in chronographers, psalmists or proph- 
ets, which, however, is not the case. Thus we are again 
obliged to admit that the recasting of the Mosaic documents 
could not have taken place after the days of Samuel. 

9. The question arises, do the documents before us com- 
pel us to admit that the Mosaic documents were edited after 
the death of Moses? In this connection the following points 
must be considered : 

(a) There are anachronistic passages in the Pentateuch. 
Exodus xvi. 35 and 36 closes the narrative of the manna 
and the first falling of quail in the wilderness of Zin, thus : 
" The children of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they 
came to the inhabited land ; they ate the manna till they 
came into the borders of the land of Canaan. An omer is 
the tenth part of an ephah." This could have been written 
only after they had come into the land, and had a different 
measure of capacity ; hence after the death of Moses. Le- 
viticus xxi. is headed, " Say to the priests, sons of Aaron," 
contrary to all similar passages, which open invariably, 
"Speak (and not say) to Aaron and his sons." Then verse 10 



180 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

occurs, " And the priest greater than his brothers." These 
verses could have been written only after the death of Aaron, 
as the latter had no brother priests, hence could not be 
called the greatest of them. Numbers xiii. 24 is an explan- 
atory note, giving the reason why that place was called 
Nahol Eshcol, called so by " the children of Israel " in after 
times, not by the spies, but after the death of Moses. The 
same is the case with Numbers xxii. 20 and 27-30 ; xxxiii. 
34-42, as quoted above. The only anachronism in Deuteron- 
omy xvii. 14-20, the law concerning the king, which is in 
dissonance with the whole Mosaic legislation, also may be 
ascribed to Samuel, as the last chapter, in which the death 
of Moses is narrated, is given to Joshua. We notice no 
passages in Genesis that must necessarily have been written 
after Moses. It has been stated before that all land west of 
the Euphrates was called by the Eastern nations Arab, " the 
West," and by the Egyptians Eber, the other side of the 
Red Sea and the Isthmus, hence all that country was called 
" Land of the Ebrim," or Hebrews. The supposed anachron- 
ism of pliO tN \U^Dm " the Canaanite Was then in the 
land," is none with the author of Genesis, and would be 
none even if Abraham was supposed to have said it, as it 
means as well : "And the Canaanite had just then come into 
the interior of the land," viz., when Abraham came, as its 
actual home was at the western and southern borders of the 
land (Genesis x. 19; Numbers xiii. 29). Genesis xxxvi. 31- 
39 is not necessarily an anachronism. It begins : " These are 
the kings which reigned in the land of Edom before a king 
reigned (or a government was established; to the children 
of Israel." Then eight kings, all foreigners, are named, 
evidently successive conquerors, or governors, placed there 
by the Pharaohs. All of them may have reigned over the 
Horites and the children of Esau before the latter achieved 
superiority and independence, and gave kings to the land. 
From the emigration of Esau to Seir to the exodus of 
Israel 300 years elapsed — too long a time almost for eight 
successive kings. The "l^W^O with its peculiar construe- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 181 

tion, preserved also in Chronicles, does not necessarily sig- 
nify any king ; it means also a government organized. In 
this sense we find in Deuter. xxxiii. 5, Moses is called King 
of Jeshurun, " he having gathered around himself the heads 
of the people, uniting the tribes of Israel," i. e., establish the 
government whose head he was. In the Samaritan Joshua, 
Moses, Joshua and others are plainly called kings. 

(6) There are, Exodus xxxiv. 29-33 and Numbers xii. 3, 
two passages speaking of Moses in so laudatory a manner 
that it seems not Moses had written them. No man of that 
eminence will write of himself how his face was shining 
and beaming so that Aaron and the people were afraid to 
look at him ; or that he was the meekest of all men. 

(c) There are in the Pentateuch definitions of names of 
persons which are not deemed correct, and point to a later 
hand. 

(d) There are numerous repetitions in the Pentateuch 
which could not be the work of one writer, it is maintained. 
This point, however, is not well taken. As regards the repe- 
tition of laws, the ancient expounders, as recorded in the 
Talmud, established that the repetition of any law contains 
an amendment, especially in Deuteronomy, which main- 
tains to have the object of HNtil miTlM flK "NO " ex- 
pounding this Thorah" (i. 5). For instance, Deut. xiv. be- 
gins with amending Leviticus xi., adding thereto that such 
may be given to the resident alien or sold to the transient 
foreigner, they being not bound to observe those dietary 
laws. Then from verse 22 the law of tithe is repeated, to 
add thereto that the part of the tithe which the owner is 
commanded to consume at " the place where the Lord thy 
God will choose " may be sold at home and the money used 
to that purpose. Then chapter xv., the law concerning the 
year of release, in order to add thereto that debts must not 
be collected during the Sabbath year (the rabbis held all debts 
were canceled) and that the transient foreigner was not in- 
cluded in this law. Such is the case with every repetition 
of law, except THND D^DH OOVD UtP- Where nar- 
rations are repeated, as the same having happened to two 



182 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

different persons, it must be borne in mind that this is by 
no means impossible. Besides, repetitions of this kind 
occur only in Genesis, whose author may have had before 
him double traditions or documents in those particular 
cases. 

(e) The only book written in the first person is Deuter- 
onomy, the others are written in the third person, as though 
another author had written the whole from older records 
before him or from traditions. 

(/) We find there but scanty outlines of Israel's 
history in Goshen, and none from thirty-seven years' 
sojourning in the wilderness, viz., from the second to the 
fortieth year, a few episodes in Numbers excepted. And yet 
we know from Hosea ix. 10 ; x. 1,2; xi. 1-4 ; xiii. 5, 6 ; Amos 
v. 25, 26 ; Ezekiel xx. ; Psalms lxxviii. ; lxxxi. xcv., that we 
possess but a small part of the history in the wilderness in 
Exodus and Numbers. In regard to Goshen we learn from 
1 Chronicles how little we know of its history; as for 
instance iv. 19-23; vi. 20-24; viii. 11-13. It seems even 
from some of these notices that many of the Hebrews pos- 
sessed estates and towns in Canaan, while their people were 
in Goshen. It seems, therefore, that the historical portion 
of the three middle books is a mere abstract from older and 
more extensive records. 

(g) There is no chronological order in the first four 
books (j-mrO nmKDl tDlpID pN) as the Talmud admits, 
nor a logical connection in the order of the sections of laws 
(JTD*DD p^nn p*t), except in Deuteronomy ; the fourth 
book is fragmentary and contains pieces which belong 
either to the preceding books or also to Deuteronomy. 

Therefore we are bound to admit : 

A. That the Thorah with all its principles, doctrines, 
laws, institutions, political, social and ecclesiastical, and the 
cotemporary history as laid down in the original documents 
of Moses, was always known in Israel and was always canon 
to the nation, notwithstanding despotic kings and princes 
had sought to override the Law, and paganizing multitudes, 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 183 

that went astray after other gods and the immoral practices 
undermining reason, freedom and justice. 

B. Exodus and Leviticus were edited after the death of 
Moses — in the Phineas age — from the original documents 
and contain few of the editor's additions and many omis- 
sions (perhaps also exaggerations) in the historical portions. 

C. Numbers was edited later on, from fragments omitted 
by the former and parts originally belonging to Deuter- 
onomy. 

D. Genesis and Deuteronomy are the original works of 
Moses, with some very few later additions in Deuteronomy. 

E. Numbers bears the imprints of the prophet Samuel, 
by whom and his school it must have been edited, it bears 
no traces of any later date, to connect Leviticus with Deu- 
teronomy. The additions to Deuteronomy also do not 
reach beyond the time of Samuel. 

F. Exodus and Leviticus may have been edited any time 
after the conquest — they contain nothing pointing to a later 
date — and no later than the time of the prophetess Deborah. 

The question may arise, why do we insist upon this sys- 
tem, and not rather yield to the fragmentists, Jahvists and 
Elohists, with whom the Thorah is composed of a number 
of fragments from various authors of unknown times? To 
this we reply : 

(a) Because we possess no documentary evidence what- 
ever of the origin or existence of any such fragments at any 
time ; but we have such evidence of the origin and existence 
of the Mosaic documents, in contradiction of which specu- 
lation is of no value. 

(b) Because the whole Thorah is of one and the same 
spirit in principle, doctrine, precept and law, which must 
necessarily come from one author, and not possibly from a 
number of authors. 

(c) Had such fragments existed at any time, the biblical 
records being so particular with registering of names, must 
have taken notice of them, which is not the case, while the 
Mosaic records are specifically mentioned. 

(d) Because the entire fabric of speculation basing upon 



184 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

the Jahvistic and Elohistic criteria of authorship is eo ipso 
false and worthless. 

10. The theories advanced, that the Thorah was com- 
piled of a number of older books written by various authors 
at different times, with or without Mosaic portions, are based 
upon the first hypothesis, that there are portions in Holy 
Writ, in which God is called Jehovah and others in which 
he is called Elohim. This it was assumed — certainly on no 
holding ground — points to different authors. Then on the 
strength of grammatical niceties and supposed repetitions 
and contradictions in the different books, the division into 
original fragments was pressed to an unreasonable number, 
although it is evident that casual grammatical deviations 
in such small portions of literature are no evidence for dif- 
ferent authors, as by a rigid application of the same method, 
any book, ancient or modern, could be split into fragments 
from different authors. The very fact that with this method 
the Pentateuch was split in twenty-five slices, each of a differ- 
ent author, proves the fallacy of that method, anyhow to any 
critical reader of the original. This method, however, like 
all others, to prove that the Thorah was not of Moses and 
the historical books were re-edited and interpolated, started 
originally from the Jahvistic-Elohistic hypothesis and in 
support thereof; this being refuted, all those theories fall 
with it. This hypothesis, however, is without foundation 
for the following reasons : 

(a) Every book of the Bible was written by a Jahvist, 
none besides the second and a part of the third book of 
Psalms is Elohistic (Psalms xlii.-lxxxiii. ) , that is, the Elo- 
him predominates in all of them. Here is the documentary 
evidence that the different names of God do not point to 
different authors. The same David who is credited with the 
purely Jahvistic psalms (especially Psalms viii. xviii.) is also 
credited with the Elohistic psalms (Psalms li.-lxi. andlxiii. 
lxxi ) ; the same sons of Korah at the heads of Elohistic 
psalms (Psalms xlii.-xlix.) are also credited with the 
Jahvistic (Psalms lxxxiv., lxxxv., lxxxvii. and lxxxviii.). 
Our theory, for which we have some Scriptural support, is 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 185 

that the hymns of David were written for public worship 
at the advanced age of the King, after the ark had been 
brought to Zion, therefore they are Jahvistic, ag he only in 
his last words calls himself author of the Zemiroth Israel (2 
Samuel xxiii.). His Elohistie psalms were considered pro- 
ductions of his earlier days, as all the headings show and 
as the compiler of the second book confirms by calling them 
Thephilloth (Psalms lxxii. 20) and not Zemiroth, in them he 
omitted the tetragrammaton. The Elohistie psalms of the 
Sons of Korah and Asaph psalms, together with those of 
David, were only used at iheBamoth worship outside of Zion, 
and the tetragrammaton is omitted in them, replaced by Elo- 
him. The few Elohistie pieces in Genesis have been accounted 
for as old documents partly adopted and partly adapted by 
the Jahvistic author. Elohim like El Shaddi are purely 
Hebraic and monotheistic, marking distinctly the age of 
transition from the worship of the natural forces to the 
cognition of the absolute and infinite Deity, and the end of 
that transition period with Abraham. 

(b) The oldest poetical parts of Scriptures are mainly 
Jahvistic with the term Elohim used alternately. These are 
the songs of Moses, the poems of Balaam, the blessing of 
Moses, the song of Deborah, the prayer of Hannah, Psalms 
xviii. exxxvi., and in all of the Prophets. This frequent 
alternation, in each case of Elohim with the tetragrammaton 
in the oldest poetical pieces, which could impossibly be cut 
into fragments and given to a number of different authors — 
if even the headings of psalms are taken to be of later origin 
— offer proof positive that the Jahvistic-Elohistic hopothesis 
is a fallacy. This is so much more evident from such pieces 
which were actually transcribed, like the eighteenth psalm 
from 2 Samuel xxii., or Psalms cxv. from exxxv., or cxliv. 
from three older psalms, or even in Chronicles from Samuel 
and Psalms, the names of God are never changed except 
once in Psalms xviii., where Elohim is put instead of the 
tetragrammaton ; hence the transcribing hypothesis is also 
worthless. All other objections raised against the authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch and the historical books, the David- 



186 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

ian Psalms and the Solomonic Proverbs prove a failure and 
can only be taken as the products of misunderstanding or 
misinterpretation of Biblical passages, if it is admitted that 
documentary evidence opposite speculations is conclusive, 
which none can justly doubt. If we add thereto that Exodus 
and Leviticus received their present form in the Phineas 
time, when also Joshua was edited, and Numbers in the time 
of Samuel, for which we have documentary intimations any- 
how, also the anachronistic objections fall away, and we are 
entitled to the conclusion that the main laws of Moses, with 
as much of history as was deemed necessary to understand 
them correctly, was recast in the Exodus-Leviticus canon — 
originally one book — as early as it was necessary for govern- 
ment, priests and people to have it, and this was at the very 
beginning of the occupation of Canaan. When a new literary 
period dawned in Israel with the Prophet Samuel, other 
laws and portions of history which the former had not con- 
sidered, but were there in the ancient Mosaic records, were 
compiled in the book of Numbers, which, with the former, 
exhausted the laws of Moses, although not also the history, 
which was not considered of equal importance. Therefore, 
we have no history of Goshen and none of the wilderness 
fragments excepted from the second to the fortieth year. 
This gives us the following dates : 

Genesis, Deuteronomy (with some Samuel additions) and 
the entire material of the three middle books of the Penta- 
teuch date from the first half of the fifteenth century B. C, 
Exodus, Leviticus and Joshua, fourteenth century B. C, 
Numbers, also Judges and part of Samuel, eleventh century 
B. C. 

With this argument established, those advanced against 
the authenticity of the historical books have become worth- 
less. For they were originally construed in support of the 
hypothesis, that no Thorah existed, and its production was 
a fraud and forgery ; in support thereof another and still 
more flagrant fraud and forgery was perpetrated, viz. : the 
historical records were falsified to make it appear that the 
Thorah existed from the days of Moses. That hypothesis 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 187 

being overthrown, the whole series of arguments in its sup- 
port is useless and worthless, and truth is re-enthroned. 

11. Ezra, the Scribe, a scion of the last high priest in the 
Temple of Solomon, was born in Babylonia toward the 
close of the reign of the Medo-Persian King, Darius Hysta^- 
pis (52i-485 B. C). All that is known of the life and work 
of Ezra is taken from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 
the traditions preserved in Talmud and Midrash. Outside 
thereof that great Scribe is not mentioned, not even in the 
Mishnah; where (Abotb I. 1) his name is most naturally 
expected, it is omitted, and the chain of tradition is stated 
thus : " Moses received the Thorah from Sinah, delivered it 
to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets 
and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Synod ;" although 
elsewhere he is counted a bearer of traditions and a disciple 
of Baruch ben Neriah, who was the scribe of the prophet 
Jeremiah. The theory advanced by modern critics, that Ezra 
was the author or the editor or compiler of the Thorah, 
and the historical books of Former Prophets, is based upon 
no kind of documentary evidence ; it is the product of spec- 
ulation, contrary to all written accounts of the great scribe, 
who, according to one statement in the Talmud, was identi- 
cal with the prophet Malachi (Meguillah 15). This, how- 
ever, was not generally accepted, as he is always called the 
scribe, the Hasid and Anav (pious and meek) like Moses, 
the twenty-second bearer of the traditions after Moses, but 
he is never called a prophet. He is supposed ( Sanhedrin 
21) to have been competent that the Thorah had been given 
through him, if Moses had not preceded him. The Talmud 
(Succah 20) contains also this statement: "At first when 
the Thorah had been forgotten in Israel Ezra came up (from 
Babylon) and established it;" but the same thing is said 
of Hillel (100 B. C.) on the same page of the Talmud, which 
proves that Thorah in this connection refers to the oral law 
only, and not to the written Law of Moses. 

12. What Ezra actually did is reported in the books of 
Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the ancient Rabbinical liter- 
ature, thus : 



188 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

(a) Ezra viii., the oldest chronist, reports that Ezra was 
an " expert Scribe in the Thorah of Moses/' (verse 6) and 
"had put his heart into the inquiry in the Thorah of 
Jehovah, and to do and to teach in Israel ordinance and 
judgment," was appointed by King Artaxerxes, Supreme 
Judge and Teacher of the "Law of the God of Heaven" 
(verses 12 and 21), also to appoint judges of all grades for 
all people west of the Euphrates (verse 25), " that they may 
judge in all Syria and Palestine " (1 Esdras viii. 23). He 
was given almost absolute power to carry into effect 
the provisions of the king's decree (verse 26), and he made 
use of his authority (Ezra x. 7, 8). He was also appointed 
carrier of the treasures sent to the Temple of Jerusalem and 
head of the colony led to Palestine. The term of Sopher, 
rendered " Scribe," we know from the use of this term ever 
after Ezra, signifies "a writer" or copyist (and not an 
author), and an "expounder" of any existing book or 
books, or existing traditions. The terms of the edict in 
verse 25 (also 21), that Ezra's powers should extend "to 
all people" west of the Euphrates, or according to the 
apocryphal Esra all " Syria and Palestine," where the non- 
Israelites were certainly predominant in numbers, proves 
that it was not purely religious or ritual laws which Ezra 
was to teach and enforce, all of which existed in Palestine 
before the advent of Ezra; it was the political and social 
law, D£tTD! DID (verse 10), which was to be introduced and 
enforced. This had been suspended, of course, during the 
Babylonian captivity and was not restored to the Zeru- 
babel colony in Palestine and at no other time prior to the 
seventh year of King Artaxerxes ; he decreed the con- 
version of the Medo-Persian colony in Palestine into a 
state organization with its own law and jurisdiction. This 
was accomplished by Ezra and Nehemiah. This is evident 
also from the fact that Ezra never interfered with any 
purely religious institution, and with Nehemiah never 
went beyond the sphere of political and social law. This 
appears from Nehemiah ix. 36, 37 and x. 30, 40. 

In Jerusalem the books inform us, that Ezra, on com- 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 189 

plaint by the princes, convened a general meeting of all 
people of Judah and Benjamin together with the priests 
and Levites, in order to adopt measures against the evil 
of misalliance and polygamy. The general meeting de- 
manded the construction of a representative body (Ezra x. 
12, 15). This, it is justly supposed, was the origin of that 
representative body, called in the Talmud " the Men of the 
Great Synod," of which we treat further on. Then again 
Ezra appears before the assembled people, by order of 
Nehemiah, with "the book of the Thorah of Moses, which 
Jehovah commanded Israel" (Nehemiah viii.). On that 
memorable first day of the seventh month Ezra read the 
Thorah up to noon time of that day before the assembled 
people, and the Levites expounded, or perhaps also trans- 
lated it to those from foreign countries. These readings 
were then continued especially during the days of the 
feast of tabernacles (verses 13 and 18). On the twenty- 
fourth day of the seventh month, the Thorah was pro- 
claimed as the law of the land, the assembled people 
swore the oath of allegiance, the princes signed the docu- 
ment to this effect, and additional laws were promulgated 
(ibid. ix. and x.). This and nothing more is narrated of 
the work of Ezra in the two books. 

(b) In the two Talmuds and the Midrash Ezra is reported 
as the author of new rules (ni3pfi) mostly referring to the 
administration of political and social laws ; some referring 
to writing and reading of the Thorah ; and the interdiction 
of intermarriage with the Nethinim (Ezra viii. 20) assistants 
of the Levites in the temple service, appointed to it by King 
David, supposed to be descendants of the Gibeonites that 
came to Joshua to which belonged also the " Sons of the 
Servants of Solomon." The supposition that Ezra was the 
author of any Thargum, Syriac or Aramaic version of the 
Thorah, is erroneous. In the Talmud (Nedarim 37 and 
Meguillah 3), on which this supposition is based, it is stated 
in advance, that Onkelos was the author of the Targum to the 
Thorah, and Jonathan ben Uziel wrote the Targum of 
Prophets. The Targumist of Hagiography, Rabbi Joseph 



190 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

the Blind, is mentioned later on. Against this statement of 
fact, an exposition of Abba Areka on Nehemiah viii. 8, is 
cited, where the word £Hfl3 is understood to signify 
" translation " or Targum. This verse, however, refers not 
to Ezra at all, it refers to the Levites, who expounded the 
Thorah to the people, some of them may have spoken Ara- 
maic to the foreigners in that assembly, and this, as is 
stated there in the Talmud, was forgotten. In the same 
passage it is stated also that the Levites promulgated then 
among the people the Massorah, the division of verses, and 
the disjunctive accentual signs (D*02^3 *pD£). As no 
writing was done there, we can but understand this passage 
to convey the idea that the Levites repeated the passages 
of the Thorah so subdivided in verses and the verses in 
phrases, with the same accentuation, stress and emphasis, 
as they heard it from Ezra; but it does not say that he 
invented anything. It is maintained elsewhere that the 
main portion of the Massorah (not the vocal and accentual 
signs) were as old as the Thorah itself, to which is added 
(Taanith 276 and Meguillah 22a) that the verses were 
originally established by Moses. Therefore Abba Areka 
could not have thought of crediting Ezra with this work. 
The Sopherim, " Scribes," succeeding Ezra, are given credit 
only for counting every letter in the Thorah (Kiddushin 
30a). 

13. One invention is ascribed to Ezra, and this is the 
Hebrew square-letter alphabet, called the DHl^N DfiD, now 
the only style of the Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic portions 
included. The oldest Hebrew alphabet, extant in coins and 
inscriptions, is like the Phoenician, original Greek, Syrian, 
Samaritan and other Shemites. With Ezra that new alpha- 
bet was brought into Palestine, and he transcribed the 
Thorah in these characters. After him the Great Synod 
transcribed all books of Holy Writ in the same manner. 
The oldest alphabet was henceforth used for ordinary pur- 
poses ( 5 'anhedr in 216 and Yeru^halmi Meguillah first Perek). 
It is maintained that Daniel was the inventor of the new 
alphabet, the Menai Menii was written on the wall in these 



Pbonaqs to Holy Writ. 191 

characters, therefore only Daniel could read the ominous 
inscription on the wall, and Ezra learned it from him. 
Nothing similar to these letters, except in the inscriptions 
of Palmyra, has been discovered anywhere ; certainly noth- 
ing anyway like them in the cuneiform letters of Assyrian 
origin. Therefore the rabbis of the Talmud differ as to the 
signification of the term Kethab Ashurith. While some main- 
tain it was called so because it came with Ezra from Assyria, 
others define the term HfOD "l^IKO NIPIS? "it was an im- 
proved writing," more distinct and more beautiful ; while 
others again maintain it was the original Hebrew alphabet 
which in course of time had fallen in disuse and was restored 
by Ezra. All agree, however, that the Sepher Ezra, the 
Scroll, preserved in the temple as the authentic copy of the 
Thorah, from which all scrolls of the Thorah used in syna- 
gogue, school or hall of justice had to be an exact copy, was 
written in this Kethab Ashurith by Ezra the Scribe. 

14. Connected with this translettering of the Thorah was 
the critical authentication of the text from the various 
manuscripts and the bearers of the traditions. The latter 
were supposed to know every word of the Thorah, with its 
proper vocalization and accentuation and every letter of 
every word, by heart, of which class Ezra is represented the 
highest expert. Wherever the two authorities deviated from 
one another, the differences were noted in the following 

manner : ^DH ^JrO Hp |»1p tf?1 piflD J^HD tifr) f"ip 

DHfiD TrtDJPI DHflD ])pn 8*701 viz., the letters or words 

as found in the manuscripts were retained in the text, and the 
deviations of the tradionalists were noticed in marginal 
notes. The authenticated copy of the Thorah required also 
protection against the mistakes of transcribers or willful 
interpolators ; to this end other parts of the Massorah were 
established referring to writing. One of the most important 
rules in this connection is that none of the sacred books 
must be written from memory ; it must be copied word by 
word and letter by letter from an authentic copy. Other 
rules of this kind are large letters and small letters in cer- 



192 The Authenticity of the Pentateuch. 

tain fixed words (NDIH NrDi O 'N) the exact space to 
be left between words and verses, major and minor para- 
graphs (illDinDI JViffinfl) that certain pages must begin 
with certain words ; the exceptional lineal arrangement for 
writing the poetical portions of Scriptures, and many other 
rules compiled in the rabbinical code of Maimonides, by 
which the authentic copies could be recognized prima vista. 
All these rules and exceptions are noticed in Talmud and 
Midrash centuries before the Massorites of the sixth Chris- 
tian century invented the vowel and accentual signs ; hence 
as far as the Thorah is concerned may be ascribed to Ezra, 
as is always presupposed in the Talmud. This, however, is 
all that can legitimately be ascribed to Ezra in connection 
with the Thorah. There exists no documentary evidence 
beyond this of Ezra's work, and these suffice to establish 
beyond a reasonable doubt that after him no change what- 
ever could be made in the text of the Thorah. 

15. The Men of the Great Synod (rfTVtin J1M3 *BON) 
consisted of 120 members, viz., 44 Horim, 44 Seganim, 22 
Levites, 8 priests, all heads of family groups, high priest 
and scribe as presiding officers, up to the time after the con- 
quests of Alexander the Great. After this time the number 
of the body was changed to 70, and was called " The Beth 
Din of the High Priests," from Simon the Just to Judah 
Maccabee, and " The Beth Din of the Maccabees " up to the 
reign of John Hyrcan, when the character and name of that 
body was changed into Synedrion or Sanhedrin, no longer 
presided over by high priest and scribe. Prior to this 
change the body was called, generally, the Great Synod. 
This body continued the work of Ezra in accordance with 
his rules and regulations applied to all books of Holy Writ, 
authenticated critically, translettered into Kethab Ashurith 
( some books they compiled from defective manuscripts) and 
established official copies for the temple archives, which re- 
mained the exemplary copy for all copyists. In course of 
time it seems Former Prophets came first, then Later Pro- 
phets, then Hagiography, of which Psalms, Koheleth and 
Shir Hashirim came last. There were in the temple salaried 



Pronaos to Holy Writ. 193 

correctors of copies made from the books kept in the 
archives ( Yerushilmi). They were called Zophim and 
Hachraim, only the names of the two last officers are pre- 
served, viz., Kabbi Joshua ben Chananiah and Rabbi Eliezer 
ben Hyrcan, under whose direction Onkelos or Aquila trans- 
lated the Thorah (ibid. Megillah first Perek),* the correct 
pronunciation and accentuation of each word and phrase 
was the particular care of the scribes and teachers of the 
young (Nedarim 37a), and the main science of the profes- 
sion. The Massorites could invent no more in their time 
than the vowel and accentual signs to represent the sounds 
known to every man of knowledge in Israel. The Maso- 
retic notes only refer to exceptions, the rule of reading cor- 
rectly the text was always well known, as is evident from 
the ancient Rabbinical literature, the ancient translations, 
Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Samaritan and Gothic. Thus 
not only the manuscripts but also the pronunciation and 
accentuation of each syllable of Holy Writ were preserved 
intact, alike in all ages and in all parts of the world, as is 
evident from the ancient manuscripts extant and especially 
from the still more ancient commentaries and the united 
testimony of the Karaites and the Christians of the first 
centuries. There exists no solid ground on which to base 
any doubt in the authenticity of any book of Holy Writ. 

* The story of R. Simeon ben Lakish in Sopherim vi. 4, and in 
Yerushalmi that scrolls of the Law found in the temple court were 
rejected by a majority rule, because two had it so and one other- 
wise, the one always was rejected, is certainly a mistake of the 
copyist, because no such rule in this connection is given in the 
Talmud. The passage is suspicious anyhow by its number three 
and in three cases. The mistake of the transcriber is perhaps that 
he turned the statement to tell the very opposite of what was the 
case, viz., although two were incorrect and one correct, yet the two 
were rejected. 

The End. 




PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



